we are still really at early stages as to whether that might happen or not. i think one license to build a plant or to export gas has been approved. several others are pending. it is often the case licenses being approved does not mean that projects will actually get a bill. it does remain to be seen. -- -- does not necessarily mean projects will actually get bui lt. we still import a small amounts of liquefied natural gas. a small amount of data, we export some of it -- a small amount of that, we host:: we will have to leave it there. howard gruenspecht and carol werner. thank you both for being on the

program. guest: thank you. guest: thank you. caller: we will have coverage this sunday of the dedication for the martin luther king site. you can read about it in today's "usa today." you can find out more about our coverage on our website c- span.org. we are now going to go live to the house of representatives where they started their business day. we will see you, again on "washington journal tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from tennessee, mr.

fleischmann. mr. fleischmann: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five one-minute requests on each side. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. johnson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker: without objection, so ordered. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor the prestonwood pregnancy center in dallas, texas, for being an outstanding and vital resource in its community. our nation was founded upon the belief that all men, regardless of status, are entitled to the most precious of rights, the right to life. the prestonwood center has worked to protect lives of the unborn for the last 20 years, acting as a resource for more than 48,000 clients, many of

whom have chosen life simply because they had someone to talk to who cared. the center provides guidance, education and medical services to women and families in north texas and maintains a highly trained and knowledgeable staff dedicated to protecting the sanctity of human life. i applaud the prestonwood center's commitment to life and to serving its community. god bless you, god bless america. i salute you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker on wednesday, october 12, tragedy struck my hometown in pennsylvania. mr. altmire: that might an officer was shot during an armed confrontation with a wanted criminal. he's believed the first police officer ever to be killed in the line of duty from his hometown.

the patrolman was a 1989 graduate of his high school. at the time of his death, he was the k-9 officer. i ask my colleagues to join me in praying for the family he left behind. we hope that his wife, two sons and parents know that we will always remember derrick's bravery and valor. he died serving the community he loved and for that we are forever grateful. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: mr. speaker, during the hot summer days of august with daily consistent temperatures over 100 degrees, a record drought over the state and hundreds of wildfires burning the plains and prairies of texas, a miracle from the lord occurred. the birth of a new child.

ly vy zachary alexander joined the world on august 13, 2011 in waco, texas. every time a child of innocence is born it is a happy event. the first cry brings joyful tears to the eyes of parents, grandparents and neighbors. it is a happy occasion because we see hope in the freshness of birth, hope for a better world and hope for a better tomorrow. levi is born in the most marvelous and free country in the world, america. his parents have the most important and hardest job of all jobs. along with training energetic sister and brother, raising this new son of america to be of good character, love, liberty and walk in the favor of god and man is the most important responsibility of parents. so, mr. speaker, my desire for levi as his grandfather is he matures to be strong and courageous, love america and play football for the university of texas and not oklahoma. and that's just the way it is.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? mrs. capps: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. capps: mr. speaker, i rise today to bring concern to the health and welfare students across our country. just two weeks ago we lost angela, a 16-year-old cheerleader in california who collapsed at a football game from sudden cardiac arrest. sudden cardiac arrest is the leading cause of death in the united states and sadly that trend is only increasing, especially among students. but there are ways to prevent these tragic events. like the remarkable story of kylie, a 7th grade student from texas. her life was saved when two trained teachers used c.p.r. and an automatic external defibrillator to kick-start her heart. someone in kylie's situation would only have 3% chance of

survival. these stories underscore how important c.p.r. is to save lives. i am presenting legislation to help c.p.r. training. not only will it carry into adulthood so not only may they save the life of a classmate, a family, friend or complete stranger. mr. speaker, i ask my colleagues to support the teaching children to save lives act. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the elevation of the st.s peter and paul church in chattanooga, tennessee, to the status of minor basilica on october 22. this church sits in my hometown and it is where i attend

services. st. peter and paul parish was founded in 1852 when father brown became the first pastor. mr. fleischmann: upon his appointment to the pastor in 1887, father william walsh began plans for a new church. ground was broken on february 1, 1888, and on june 29, 1890, saints peter and paul church was dedicated. due to the inspired leadership of bishop richard epsticka and monsignor george schmidt, these are the first churches in tennessee to be honored as minor basilica from the pope. i look forward to continue to attending services as his parishioner and i congratulate the church on this great honor. thank you and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maine rise? mr. michaud: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, jazz 1. mr. michaud: there is talk about who is blocking our economic recovery but there is plenty of blame to go on both sides of the aisle. china is literally robbing us of our factories and our manufacturing jobs that we haven't done a thing about it. the house must consider the senate currency bill immediately and the president must finally deliver on his campaign promise and crack down on china administratively. getting tough on china's currency manipulation will create conservatively one million jobs, not costing the american people a penny. it's time to stop the excuses and end the partisan bickering. it's time for the president and the house leadership to go beyond rhetoric and get the tough job of china currency

that lakes -- manipulation taken care of. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today on behalf of the congressional prayer caucus to note the importance of prayer and faith in our nation's history. and in october of 1863 president abraham lincoln discussed his deep reliance on god during his presidency. in addressing the baltimore presbyterian senate, he said, i saw that i was going to have be a administration, if an administration at all, of extraordinary difficulty. it was without exception the time of the greatest difficulty that this country ever saw. mr. forbes: i was early brought to a living reflection that nothing in my power whatever and others to rely upon would succeed without direct assistance of the almighty. i often wished that i was a more devout man than i am.

nevertheless, amid the greatest difficulties of my administration, when i cannot see any other resort, i would place my whole reliance in god knowing that all -- that he would decide for the right. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. barrow: mr. speaker, i ask my colleagues to join me in strengthening the federal recovery coordination program. it was a way to help wounded warriors to navigate the complex bureaucracy of the v.a. and defense department programs. it has prevented the program from reaching its full potential. my legislation codifies the federal recovery coordination program and places it under the joint secretaries of veterans affairs and defense. they will act on behalf of the

veteran when they identify a need and ensures they have access to all stages of the recovery process, especially during the initial transition from active duty. these reforms will help strengthen this program and help better serve the needs of our wounded veterans. i ask my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i recently asked my constituents to take a quick email survey regarding regulation and the impact it has on jobs and our economy. the response from the 14th congressional district of illinois was overwhelming. 68% says businesses currently operate in hostile business environment when it comes to regulation. 70% said that the regulators and bureaucrats should be required to consider the impact regulations have on jobs and businesses before they're imposed. to my constituents, i say we are listening.

we're working hard to ensure that small businesses and job creators have a stable and certain regulatory environment. we're working hard to get washington off their backs. and we're working hard to ensure that they feel confident expanding and hiring, putting americans back to work and getting our economy moving again. that's why all this fall we have been tackling and cutting red tape from the e.p.a. and other bureaucracies. without our action, e.p.a. threatens to impose new rules that would devastate american jobs, raise the cost of electricity for homeowners and businesses and drive american businesses out of existence and overseas. that's unacceptable. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? mr. cohen: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for one minute. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. thomas jefferson originally penned the declaration of independence that all members were created equal. but it was dr. martin luther king and civil rights workers that made those words ring

true. it took almost 200 years for that to happen. on sunday in this nation's capitol dr. king will be honored with a monument on the mall. it should be considered a monument to all the civil rights workers, the sit-ins, the freedom riders, the students that went to mississippi that marched from selma to montgomery, the john lewises, the harry bell fonties, maxine smiths, russell sugarmans and all the civil rights leaders who made this promise be fulfilled. all men are now created equal but we have a long way to go. i thank the civil rights workers. they are veterans who had to fight their own country to secure the rights that we now enjoy. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise?

>> mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 431 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 81, house resolution 431. resolved, that at anytime after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18 declare the house resolved in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 2273, to amend subtitle d of the solid waste disposal act to facilitate recovery and beneficial use and provide for the proper management and disposal of materials generated by the combustion of coal and other fuels. -- fossil fuels. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the

chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce. after general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on energy and commerce now printed in the bill. the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to

amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all all points of order against such amendment are waived. after conclusion of the bill for amendment the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. any member may demand a separate vote in the house on any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for one hour. mr. scott: thank you, sir. for the purpose of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during consideration of this resolution all time yielded is

for the purpose of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, sir. house resolution 431 provides for a structured rule for consideration of h.r. 2273, the coal residuals reuse and management act. and makes in order six amendments. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. the underlying bill would provide for consistent safe management of coal combustion residuals or coal ash in a way that protects jobs while encouraging recycling and beneficial use of these materials. this legislation simply put is one of the best job creation bills we can bring before the house of representatives. by allowing states the opportunity to take control over their individual disposal needs

instead of being forced to follow an intrusive and overreaching e.p.a. rule, we will save as many as 316,000 american jobs. the e.p.a.'s proposed regulation will increase the electricity cost and construction cost around the nation while costing elk trick utilities and business owners -- -- electric utilities and business owners. while we all agree we must be responsible in protecting our environment, i'm struggling to understand why on earth the e.p.a. continues to propose rules in a vacuum as opposed to considering the overall impact on our country. coal ash has never been proven to be toxic. but what it has been proven to be is extremely useful in strengthening everyday products from concrete to sheet rock to bowling balls. in my district, south carolina's

first, american gypsum plant uses coal ash from our local electric utility to provide an environmentally friendly wall board. american gypsum has invested $150 million in this facility and created more than 100 jobs while redeveloping an old steel mill for their facility. the e.p.a.'s proposal to regulate coal ash as a hazardous waste threatens industry's ability to repsych this material and beneficial use. this along with the increased regulatory electric and construction cost is jeopardizing jobs all across america. this legislation puts in place appropriate controls. let me emphasize, appropriate. for the safe management and disposal of coal ash while still encouraging investment in

recycling and beneficial use. once again, mr. speaker, i rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. this is the way the federal regulations should be implemented and it is the way we will protect american jobs while protecting the environment statement -- at the same time. i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on the rule and yes on the underlying bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina reserves his time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank my friend from south carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i rise today in opposition to this structured rule and the underlying legislation. i should point out to my colleagues that democrats yesterday introduced an amendment in the rules committee to make this an open rule, but

unfortunately every single republican on the rules committee voted against to make this an open process. so much for speaker boehner's pledge for an open house of representatives. this rule makes in order six amendments, six out of 16 submitted. less than half that were offered to the rules committee. included in that amendment was an amendment by mr. kissell which would have required that essentially the infrastructure that creates these holding facilities for steel ash all the components would have to be made with american products. so that it would be made with chinese steel. it would be made with american steel. american concrete, american rebar. i have no idea why that was controversial. the american people are worried about jobs and there was an opportunity to make an amendment in order that would have protected and ensured american jobs and they wanted no part of it. mr. speaker, once again the republicans are jamming a rule

through the house that shuts down the debate and cherry picks a handful of amendments. i should also point out that this bill that we are debating here today didn't even have a hearing. no hearings. i thought we were going to adhere to regular order, and that means that the committees of jurisdiction hold a hearing on the legislation, not on a general hearing on the topic but on the legislation. no hearings were held on this. discussion on this bill the other night in the rules committee i thought was comical. the chairman of the rules committee, someone who served in this institution a very long time, said he would have preferred an open rule but said the schedule forced him to vote against my amendment to make this an open rule. the schedule? the same house schedule where we go into recess every two weeks. mr. speaker, the american people want us to address the challenges that are facing our economy. they want us to be focused on

the issue of jobs. and we are not legislating under this schedule that the republicans have put into place. since there was no hearings on this bill, and since there were a lot of amendments that were offered, we should have had an open process, and if it took us a couple days to debate and vote on this bill, so be it. that's the way this place is supposed to work. yesterday on the floor we wasted time debating an abortion bill that is going absolutely nowhere. a bill that is designed to inflame and divide our country. i would suggest to my friends on the other side of the aisle instead of bringing up hot button social issues designed to fire up the right wing base, maybe they should think about bringing a jobs bill to the house -- floor of the house of representatives. in reality, mr. speaker, we should be debating the president's jobs bill. and yet the republican leadership has refused to allow us even to have a vote on the

bill. my friends on the republican side don't want to vote for a jobs bill, then they can vote against it, but we ought to be able to have a vote on the president's jobs bill. the fact is that it's been 281 days that we have been in session. 281 days without a jobs bill. 281 days that the republicans have stood on the sidelines while americans struggle to make ends meet. struggle to put food on the table. struggle to make house payments, struggle to find jobs to pay their bills. we need a real jobs plan not another bumper sticker bill demonizing the e.p.a. which is what today's bill is all about. the american people don't want us wasting time on these trivial bills, bills that won't go anywhere. what they want us to do is pass a jobs bill. they want, mr. speaker, to pass the president's jobs bill. don't take my word for it, the nbc-"wall street journal" poll released this week shows that nearly 2/ of the americans want

the president's jobs bill. the poll finds that 63% of americans support the president's bill and that only 32% oppose it. it's not even close. the american people want action on jobs. they want to go back to work. they want us to do something meaningful, and they want us to do it now. mr. speaker, if there's one thing that the new house majority has been consistent on this year it's their almost religious crusade against the e.p.a. h.r. 2273 fits right in with their political agenda to undermine the agency at any cost and in the process threaten the health and safety of the american people all under the guise of job creation. i'm appalled this is their idea of a jobs bill. mr. speaker, coal combustion waste is enormously toxic. it contains an array of the most harmful hazardous chemicals out there, mercury, lead, chromium, arsenic, that are especially devastating to the development

of children. over the years billions of tons of coal ash have been dumped in poorly designed waste beds and contaminate sites and communities across the country. i want to remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle of the catastrophic coal cash spill in kingston, tennessee, in 2008. where 1.1 billion gallons of liquid coal waste seeped out of a contaminant pool and contaminated local drinking water. i would also remind my republican colleagues that it cost the taxpayers more than $1 billion to clean up that disaster and that residents in that kingston area are still dealing with its continuing effects. h.r. 2273 is a bad piece of legislation. and it flies in the face of commonsense safety precaution when is disposing of hazardous materials. by leaving the establishment of coal ash safety standards solely at the discretion of states, this bill simply encourages a race to the bottom where the state willing to have the least protections will become the

dumping ground for the entire country. in h.r. 2273 leaves taxpayers on the hook for paying another cataclysmic disaster like the one intown tfpblet i don't think any of my colleagues would want their families, their wives, or husbands, or children anywhere near the -- living anywhere near the vicinity of a coal ash dumping site. this is another republican bill that undermines commonsense, health, and safety protection from toxic chemicals and ultimately lowers the quality of living for millions of american families. i urge my colleagues to reject this rule and instead let's have an open rule. given the fact again the bill didn't have a hearing we should have an open rule here, and i would urge my republican colleagues to finally get to work on putting the american people back to work. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts

reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, sir. i'm confused. it doesn't take a lot to confuse me but i'm confused today. mr. mcgovern consistently talks about the fact it's been 281 days without a jobs bill. i want to know the definition of a jobs bill because if you create jobs, my assumption is we are talking about jobs bills. there is no question the current legislation we are talking about saves 316,000 jobs. up to 316,000 jobs. i'm going to call that a jobs bill. there is no question the free trade agreements create about a quarter of a million jobs. those are jobs bills. the boiler mact saves jobs. cement mact saves jobs. what we have done in this congress n. this house, is talk -- in this congress, in this house is talk consistently how to rein in the regulatory environment to not only create jobs but save jobs.

when you have legislation that comes before the house that actually creates jobs, those are jobs bill. what is not, it is not an ultimatum. the president's jobs bill is do an ultimatum. do it all. there's no question about it that even the senate cannot find a way to find co-sponsors for the president's legislation and pass the bill. mr. speaker, i yield five minutes to the gentleman from west virginia, mr. david mckinley. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia is recognized. mr. mckinley: mr. chairman, i rise in support of the rule. we stand here 30 years on this discussion on coal ash, and h.r. 2273 has essentially two parts. the first part codifies the previous e.p.a. studies that concluded that coal fly ash is nonhazardous and can be recycled for beneficial use.

this was the essence of 1391. we heard from the constituents about the concern for disposal. so the second part was incorporated then into the new bill. the second bill provides for all new and existing landfills and surface empowerment to be state run with e.p.a. assistance, approval and oversight. we are trying to finally resolve the issue. the issue of disposal is taken on firsthand in 2273 with requirements for composite liners, dust controls, groundwater monitoring, structural stability. h.r. 2273 is strongly endorsed by state environmental officials, including the environmental council of states and the association of state and solid waste officials as well as various labor unions. now, let's get back to the

byproduct itself. coal ash is an unaffordable byproduct of burning coal just like putting logs in a fireplace. every day coal ash is produced in nearly 300 coal-fired generating plants in 48 of the 50 states in america. approximately 140 million tons are produced annually with 40% of that fly ash being beneficially recycled. over the years scientists and entrepreneurs have developed uses for that coal ash through a variety of recycling options. businesses were embolden to recycle the material after two studies by the e.p.a. in 1993 and 2000 both concluded that coal ash was not a hazardous material and could be used by the public. the findings of these 2000 study specifically stated that no documented cases of damage to human health or the

environment had been identified because of fly ash. as a result, industry has sprung up all across the country. the concrete of our bridges. it's used in masonry, brick. it's used in dry wall. dry wall panels and roof shingles. even the tennessee valley authority with cooperation with the department of health and human services comprehensively examined the health effects from the kingston dam accident in 2009. their conclusion was there was no significant human health impacts from the tennessee coal ash spill. companies across america use the byproduct are caught up in the uncertainties swirling around the issue of recycling material and may be forced to switch to more expensive

alternatives. according to a report, repealing the section of the bill and allowing e.p.a. to designate coal ash as a hazardous material would cost the consumers as much as $110 billion and cost 316,000 jobs. let's be frank, the opponents of this bill and this rule clearly have an anti-coal agenda. even interagency reviews at e.p.a. to designate coal ash as a hazardous material, it is opposed by many who want the continued use of recycled fly ash and want to reject the possibility of it be treated as a hazardous material. it's not the time for those who

don't like fossil fuels to push their agenda and ideology. these are real jobs at stake here. it's really that simple. therefore, anyone who opposes this rule and this legislation embraces the loss of 316,000 jobs and higher utility bills. with that i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina reserves. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself such time as i may consume. to the gentleman who just spoke, i would rehind him we're debating the -- remind him we're debating the rule here. we can debate if there are health concerns here or not. i believe there are. most scientists believe there are health concerns that we should take into consideration here, but what's wrong with an

open rule? what was so wrong with bringing an amendment to the floor that would have required that the components to build these containers, if you will, be made of materials made in the united states? what's wrong with u.s. steel? or u.s. concrete? why is that such a controversy? i would say to my colleagues on that side that like to say they are open, let this be an open rule, especially since there was no hearings on this bill. my colleague from south carolina got up and said he was confused. i'm sorry he's confused. let me try to unconfuse him about one thing and that is, if you want to create jobs, you bring the president's jobs bill to the floor. economists predicts the american jobs act can create 1.9 million jobs next year and boost economic growth by about two percentage points. and you get a two-fer here.

not only do you put people back to work but you help to reduce our deficit when you put more people to work. we could lower the unemployment rate in this country by a few percentage points, we can lower our deficit. why is that so controversial? and so rather than focus on partisan bills that don't mean much for the economy, it's time for the republicans to take up the american jobs act which is fully paid for and includes bipartisan ideas and will create jobs and grow our economy now. what we should be doing every single day on this house floor is focusing on jobs, putting people back to work. and instead we're -- today is another bill attacking e.p.a. yesterday we did an abortion bill. i mean, we're talking about everything but how to put people back to work, and i would urge my colleagues to get their priorities straight. with that i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized.

mr. scott: thank you. mr. mcgovern, thank you so much for taking the time to clarify that which is not clarifyable as it relet's to the president's objectives of creating a one size fit all take it or leave it jobs bill that doesn't create jobs but does create another $500 billion hole for the taxpayers to take care of. what we're talking about, sir, is a bipartisan approach to legislation in the house. in the committee with a vote 35-12 in the energy and commerce committee, six of the 23 democrats supported this bill. the boiler mact, 41 democrats supported that bill. cement mact, 25 democrats supporting the bill. what we've done here is create an atmosphere that is condusive for bipartisan approach to solving the environmental concerns and challenges of our nation. mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from west virginia, ms. shelly moore

capito. dr. foxx has decided to speak in her place. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized for two minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. when i heard my colleague from massachusetts talk about the president's jobs bill i couldn't resist from responding to it. as my colleague from massachusetts very well knows, the president's jobs bill was defeated in the senate. it was introdoosed in the house by request, only the person who introduced it has -- introduced in the house by request, only the person who introduced it has supported it. they are not serious about the president's jobs bill. they are using in as a political ploy. if the democrats were really serious about it, they all would be signed onto the bill but they are not. republicans are offering real

alternatives to the situation that the democrats have presented to us. we are signing on to our bills. we are voting for our bills. the senate is controlled by the democrats. they can't pass the president's jobs bill over there. it failed. it failed on a bipartisan vote. and let me point out to my colleague from massachusetts that when the democrats took control of the congress in 2007, the unemployment rate was 4.6%. when republicans gained control of the house again in january of this year, the unemployment rate had increased to 9%. what they want us to do is go back to the failed policies that existed in the four years that they were in control of the congress and the two years that they controlled the congress and the white house. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from south carolina reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i

yield myself such time as i may consume. i would remind my colleague on the rules committee, the gentlelady from north carolina, that over half the senate, over half the senate voted to bring up the president's jobs bill. over half the senate supports the president's jobs bill. but under the arcane rules in the united states senate, you need 60 votes to have lunch, never mind pass a bill. and so it wasn't defeated. a majority actually support the president's jobs bill. it is the republicans who are obstructing this legislation, who are using procedural tricks to keep this bill from coming up before the united states senate for a clean up or down vote. it is republicans in the house of representatives who are saying that none of us will have an opportunity to vote on the president's bill. here's a good idea. you bring up what you want to

bring up. you let us bring up what we want to bring up. the president's bill, as i said, is very popular. the legislation, i would remind my friend from south carolina, is paid for, is paid for. and the legislation's specifics as well as the idea of taxing the very, very, very wealthy to pay for it are popular with the american public. and that's according to an nbc news-"sweet -- nbc/"wall street journal" poll. you go home and explain to your constituents why you are against the bill. but what we should be doing here in this house of representatives is every day, you know, debating and legislating on ways to be able to put this country back to work. you want to reduce the deficit, put people back to work. you want to improve the economy, put people back to work. and it's simple. and we're doing everything in

this place but debating legislation to put people back to work. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from west virginia at this time, mrs. shelley moore capito. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from west virginia is recognized for two minutes. mrs. capito: i thank my friend from south carolina. i would like to ask the gentleman from massachusetts talking about the president's jobs bill and my question to him, if it's such a great jobs bill why doesn't it only have three co-sponsors on the bill? i don't think that says much for the emphasis on your side of the aisle or this house on the president's jobs bill. today i want to rise in support of the rule of h.r. 2283 and i want to congratulate my colleague, mr. mckinley, for his very dutyful work. this is in response of the war

on appalachian jobs. it is a wrong-headed move given that the material has been used in household construction for years. this bill simply allows states to regulate coal fly ash under their long existing disposal waste programs. this program is environmentally and economically responsible because it allows e.p.a. to set enforceable minimum standards but leaves ultimate regulation and enforcement to the states where it belongs. if the e.p.a. is permitted to regulate coal as a -- coal ash as a hazardous material it could have a devastating affect on my state's economy. we generate 97%, maybe up to 99% sometimes of our electricity from coal naturally because we are a very large coal producer. this could result in less coal use and throw thousands of coal miners out of their jobs. electricity prices would skyrocket which would hurt

manufacturers and households. i just think we're talking about jobs, let's talk about creating jobs but let's not destroy 316,000 jobs in the process of this regulatory regime that we've seen over the last several years. . we know the e.p.a. doesn't consider economic loss when they put forward these onerous provisions. we can't afford them to put americans out of work. i support this legislation. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from south carolina reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. i would say to the gentlelady from west virginia, you know, i am not a co-sponsor on the bill but i want to vote for the bill. i want to propose the unanimous consent request that we amend this rule and we bring up h.r. 12 today. if the gentleman on the other side of the aisle is willing, let's bring it up and have that debate right now. .

i'm happy to yield to the gentleman if he wants to agree to that unanimous consent. the silence, mr. speaker, is deafening. the fact of the matter is that we are going to finish up today. at 3:00 or 2:00 or whatever, and then go on another week recess. when the american people are struggling. when there are millions of people who are out of work. when there are millions of families struggling to try to pay their mortgages. where there are millions of families trying to figure out how they are going to have the resource that is send their kids to school. this is the best we can do? is this? we can do a lot better than this, mr. speaker, and i would again urge my colleagues to get serious. if you don't like the president's jobs bill, vote against it.

it's that simple. let us bring a bill to the floor that by every measure, by every public opinion poll that is out there, is popular. the american people want it. you always like to invoke polls, well, the polls overwhelmingly show the american people support this. so let's -- let's bring that bill to the floor and with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. i would just say to my good friend from massachusetts that the president's jobs perspective seems to be since february of 2009 a loss, a net loss of 2.2 million jobs. so let's just absorb that for a moment. we ought to get serious about not using the american people as a pawn for partisan politics and get serious about working in a bipartisan fashion as we have on the boiler mact, cement mact, and now on this current bill. if we work for the americans'

future, we will find more jobs created and saved in america. mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from indiana, dr. larry bucshon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. bucshon: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the rule and underlying bill. the other thing i want to remind, i guess yesterday there was some confusion at the white house about the republican plan for job creation. i would like to just point out that in early june we released that. it can be found on jobs.gop.gov if the president's interested. the combustion residuals reuse and management act stops the administration from another attempt to enforce unachievable standards, it doesn't provide the health or environmental benefits that are claimed. in exchange for no benefits we are going to give up more jobs in states and industries that can't afford more setbacks. my state of indiana, 95% of our

elk trickal energy depends on coal. it would be devastating. an independent study released earlier this year found as many as 316,000 jobs will be taken away if this rule is enacted by the e.p.a. at a time when the president's touring the country promoting his jobs bill, i think it's hypothetical of his own e.p.a. to promulgate the rule like the comb ash rule that's been shown by outside organizations to kill jobs. so this is my question, why is e.p.a. focusing on regulating coal ash? when they simselves do not exhibit. any of the four characteristics of hazardous waste. there are extensive studies reported to congress show that coal ash does not exhibit reactivity, or toxicity, why are we forcing through a regulation that goes against e.p.a.'s own findings? the reason is because an ideological anti-coal agenda

from the administration. that's why. but the concern on most americans' mind is job creation and this here is a jobs bill. to let the e.p.a. regulate coal ash rather than leaving it to the state's hands would only create jobs at the e.p.a. we need more jobs in indiana's eighth congressional district. for that reason, mr. speaker, i support the rule and i support the underlying bill. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from south carolina reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: my colleagues on the rules committee from south carolina said that we should all work in a bipartisan way. i agree. that's what the president attempted to do. his jobs bill represents a series of initiatives that were all bipartisan. they were all bipartisan until i guess -- until he announced he wanted to move on it. all of a sudden it became a

partisan deal. everything in the president's jobs package has been sponsored in a bipartisan way. and so i don't understand why now, maybe because -- if you want to call it the republican idea, i don't care, what you want to call it, but bring it to the floor and allow us to be able to debate these bipartisan initiatives. that will put people back to work. and again i would say about the rule, where's the openness here? i mean, the majority of amendments that were offered were not made in order. and including an amendment that would require that the building materials for these holding tanks be made in america. why is that so controversial? why is making things in america a radical idea to my republican friends? why is it somehow a bad thing to

insist that the steel used to build these plants be made in the united states of america and not china? we all should be on the side of the american workers here. and that means standing up and fighting to make sure that those jobs are here in the united states. so let's open this rule up so that we have an opportunity to protect american jobs. with that i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from illinois, mr. john shimkus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. mr. shimkus: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. shimkus: thank you. i'm here to speak on support for the rule. first of all on april 14, 2011, subcommittee on environment and the economy, which i chair, held a legislative hearing on coal ash, the bill h.r. 1391. based upon 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, 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 municipal solid waste, we are making coal ash repsych libble the same as we do for solid waste. it has bipartisan support. thank you rules committee for making the amendments in order. i think five of the six are all democrat amendments. so it's not perfect but it allows us to move forward. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from south

carolina reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: again, i appreciate the words from the -- my colleague from illinois, but h.r. 1391 is not h.r. 2273. and so there was no legislative hearing on h.r. 2273. i yield to the gentleman -- mr. shimkus: just because it's not is because of the info we got from democrats to change that original bill. mr. mcgovern: reclaiming my time. the new definition of openness under the rule majority is that you don't have to have a legislative hearing on a bill you bring to the floor, but you can say it doesn't matter or that you did or whatever. this is not the way this place is supposed to work. this process is not what my friends on the other side of the aisle promised. and again i have yet to hear a

good reason why this is not an open rule. given the fact that there was no hearing on this specific bill, given the fact there were a number of germane amendments that were not made in order. given the fact that during the debate there may be members on both sides of the aisle who may have ideas to want to bring to the floor and amend this bill. and also given the fact that one of the amendments that was not made in order was an amendment that would have required that the materials that are used to make these coal ash containers be made in the united states of america. why is that such a heavy lift for my friends on the other side of the aisle? with that, mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. garamendi: i thank my friend from massachusetts. i don't understand. i mean this is very, very important issue. this is an issue about dealing with fly ash and how we are

going to contain it and process it. protect the citizens. it's also an opportunity for us to deal with one of the fundamental economic problems we have in the united states which is the loss of manufacturing. it can be a lot of different kinds of equipment, materials, steel, cement, other kinds of materials that are going to be part of the process that this bill calls for. that is adequately dealing with fly ash. why wouldn't you want to put into this piece of legislation that those materials, those pieces of equipment, be manufactured in the united states? we need to rebuild our manufacturing base in this nation. we have lost more than 50% of it over the last 25 years. we need to once again make it in america. i tell you, you put this amendment into this bill, and we'll see one more piece of american manufacturing coming back into place.

it actually works. in the recovery act, what you like to call the stimulus bill, there was a paragraph put in that said, if you're going to use the transportation funds in this bill, then you must buy equipment made in america. in sacramento, california, seimans is now, has built, and continuing to expand a manufacturing plant because of that provision. hundreds of people in california are employed because congress wrote into the bill money spent on trains and buses and light rail will have to be spent on equipment manufactured in america. so seemans is doing it. -- seimans is doing it right into this piece of legislation and there will be new manufacturing plants in america making the equipment to deal with the fly ash. it is eminently sensible so why be unsensible?

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. jeff duncan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for three minutes. mr. duncan: mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. duncan: thank you. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of 2273, the coal residue reuse and management act. as i see it, the three main problems facing american economy today are the uncertainties coming from taxation, regulation, and litigation. this tone deaf administration continues to propose new forms of taxation on american job creators to the detriment of our workers and our economy. the administration continues the threat of litigation in the form of the unprecedented and unconstitutional attacks from

the national labor relations board against my hometown state of south carolina. and we see the e.p.a. creating costly regulations that are forcing businesses not to make decisions on an annual or quarterly basis but having to make decisions to comply day to day. fortunately the house has worked to turn back some of these actions but there's much work left to be done. the house recently passed two bills, h.r. 2681 and h.r. 2250. these bills seek to prevent a pair of excessive regulations from going into effect that would put hundreds of thousands of americans out of work. e.p.a. regulation the boiler mact rule is expected to cost businesses and consumers around $14 billion, resulting in a loss of over 220,000 american jobs. today we begin discussing the administration's e.p.a. regulation of coal ash that will drive up electricity costs for millions of americans, as well as construction costs for roads and homes all around the

country. from 1999 to 2009, american industries successfully recycled 519 tons of coal ash. and some 38% of the 1.35 billion tons of coal ash produced. recycling coal ash keeps electricity costs low, provides for low cost durable construction materials, and reduces the amount of waste going into the landfills. in other words, continues to recycle coal ash is good for our economy and good for the environment. . yet, the administration continues the headlong rush to wreck the american energy sector. the e.p.a. is considering treating coal ash as a hazardous waste. this simply the latest bureaucratic overreach on behalf of this administration from the left-wing fringe and the environmentalist movement. the impact of this government overreach would be nothing short of disastrous. with an impact of over 300,000

jobs lost. the bill we are debating today would end that nonsense before it can start. it allows that -- and keep in mind, america, it allows that coal ash to be regulated, not left -- not by the left-wing zealots of the e.p.a. but by the states. our founding fathers, folks, they included the 10th amendment in the constitution so that these issues could be handled by the states, not a burdensome federal agency with a political agenda and an ax to grind. yesterday, the -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. scott: i yield 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. duncan: if the president spent -- far more americans would be able to find work today. and i yield back the balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from south carolina reserves.

the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. chairman, a new study from tucks university shows we can create tens of thousands of new jobs by requiring safe disposal of coal ash. ensuring that coal ash disposal sites protects human health and the environment will take work. it will take construction workers, equipment operators and engineers. and this will provide tremendous benefits to the community in which they take place. but these jobs will not happen if we pass this bill. this bill pavegly preserves the status -- basically preserves the status quo. if we want to preserve jobs we need to vote this bill down. again, mr. speaker, we're still trying to get an understanding on this side of the aisle as to why we are not -- we don't have an open rule and why an amendment that would require that, you know, jobs to build

the infrastructure for all of this, you know, that all the materials be made in america. we want to protect american jobs and create american jobs. we have to stand up and fight for american jobs and fight for american workers. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. scott: we are prepared to close. we'll reserve our time until then. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, let me close by, again, first of all saying this rule should be an open rule and that at a very minimum the amendment that would require that the materials that would be used to construct any of these containers be made in the united states of america. it's important that we stand up for american jobs. it's important that we make it

in america. and so this rule deserves to be defeated based on that alone. this process is also bad and flawed because there was no hearing on this particular piece of legislation. and that the ranking member of the energy and commerce -- full energy and commerce committee did not think based on what he said was a particularly bipartisan open process and in fact there was some members who supported this bill in committee who will not support it on the floor because of promises that were supposedly made that were not kept. so for a whole bunch of reasons on process we should defeat this rule. secondly, mr. speaker, you know, on the underlying bill, i would remind my colleagues that part of our job here is to protect the safety and well-being of the people we represent. and coal ash contains arse neck, lead and many other toxic materials that can escape into

the air or water if the materials are not properly contained. and we should be concerned about the safety implications. we should be concerned about any consequences that may result in poor regulation and poor oversight. and to basically, you know, again, take this time on the floor to, again, take another slap at the e.p.a. because that's the favorite punching bag of my friend on the republican side of the aisle, you know, i think is not doing -- is not a credit to this institution and is not doing what we were elected to do and that is to make sure that we are upholding the safety and we're protecting the people of this country. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that the problem is only e.p.a. regulation. there was an interesting article that appeared -- opinion piece that appeared in "the new york times" by a man

named bruce bartlett. he served on the staff of jack kemp who did a piece in "the new york times" spiled "misrepresentations, regulations and jobs." he says -- i am going to read a couple lines from his piece. he says, republicans have a problem -- and he's republican himself -- he said, republicans have a problem. people are increasingly concerned about unemployment but republicans have nothing to offer them. he further says that no hard evidence is offered for this claim that the -- all the uncertainty within business is tied to regulation. he says that notwithstanding the lack of evidence, the republicans repeat this assertion endlessly throughout the conservative echo chamber. he also says while concerns about regulation have risen during the obama administration, they are about the same now as they were during ronald reagan's administration, according to an

analysis of the federations data by the economic policy institute. and he ends by saying this, he says, my opinion regulatory unserpt is invented by republicans that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out. in other words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to teal with high unemployment. i ask unanimous consent that this piece be submitted to the record, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcgovern: i'd bring that up not to say that regulation isn't a problem and that we -- that we should not deal in a constructive way with needless regulation. the president said that in the speech to the house when he introduced his jobs bill, but it is not the only problem out there and it is -- and to suggest that bringing bills like this to the floor are going to somehow create jobs is just patently false.

if we can't to create jobs in this country, we should bring the president's jobs bill to the floor. again, the american people overwhelmingly support what the president outlined in his peach before the congress -- speech before the congress and all the things that he articulated -- i'll say to my friend from south carolina -- were bipartisan ideas. you know, republicans and democrats all co-sponsored legislation on various pieces of his proposal. why now have they become controversial is beyond me. and i'll just close with this. you know, at some point i hope my friends on the other side of the aisle will get serious about the issue of jobs. at some point i hope they will bring something meaningful to this house floor that if passed will actually put people back to work because up to this point the republican leadership has failed miserablely, and i think people all across this country -- you see this reflected in the public opinion

polls -- have had it. they are tired of this constant -- this agenda of hot button issues and of trivial matters that we debate passionately and important ones not at all. so, mr. speaker, i would urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and if we defeat the previous question i'll offer an amendment to the rule to make in order an amendment by mr. garamendi of california which was submitted to the rules committee that didn't make it in order even though it is germane and fully paid for and meets every requirement of the rules of the house. the amendment would make sure that construction materials used to build holding facilities for coal ash are made in america. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of that amendment in the record along with extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. and, again, mr. speaker, let me repeat. the amendment we want to -- we want to make in order would make sure that construction

materials used to build holding facilities for coal ash are made in america. why that should be controversial is beyond me. why anybody on either side should oppose that is beyond me. this -- i would urge everyone to agree with me in defeating the previous question. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question. i urge a no vote on the rule and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. and the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. history is a measure of progress, and when it comes to the two topics that i keep hearing from mr. mcgovern, my good friend to the left, is openness and job creation. so let's examine history. the 111th congress, i'd like to ask the gentleman from massachusetts, can the gentleman tell me how many open rules he brought to the floor in the last congress as vice chairman of the rules committee? the answer is none. no, not one. under speaker boehner, our

record of openness in this congress is one we can be proud of. all of the general appropriations bills have been debated under completely open rules. all of the general appropriation bills, open rules. we've brought several authorizing bills to the floor under modified open rules only requiring preprinting of amendments. mr. mcgovern: will the gentleman yield? mr. scott: certainly. mr. mcgovern: i'd just remind my friend they have already brought -- you have already brought 30 measures under a closed rule since you took over. again, i'm just trying to keep you to your promise that you made about all this new openness which we haven't seen. today is an example of that. mr. scott: the good news is, mr. mcgovern has once again highlighted the fact that while he looks in one direction he refuses to look in the mirror and answer the question that simply no, not one, not one in the 111th congress, one open rule that he bring to the floor

of the house, but i would say the democrats in the last congress simply gave up on openness. they just gave up on openness and allowing the american people to see real debate on the house of the floor. on the issue of job creation, since february of 2009, the current administration, the current administration has lost 2.2 million jobs. two million americans now out of work since february of 2009, and my good friends from the left continue to talk about demagoguing and demonizing an issue that they simply have nothing to prove and nothing to show for what they've done. i would say this, though, that this week alone in the house of representatives we have had the opportunity to empower the job creators of america to create over 500,000 jobs in just this week. compare our record every day to

the current administration. mr. speaker, the house has passed multiple bills that will stop burdensome government regulations from destroying jobs all across america. i ask that we do so again today. enough is simply enough. we cannot allow the e.p.a. or any other government agency, for that matter, to unnecessarily kill hundreds of thousands of jobs when our national unemployment is as high as it has been the last 25 years. this is a responsible forward-thinking bill which everyone in the chamber should support. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. mr. mcgovern: mr. chairman, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the

yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] host: "washington journal"

continues. elizabeth williamson with "the

wall street journal" is here with us this morning to talk about a senate bill that was passed earlier this week regarding china and currency. what did the senate bill actually say about china's currency? guest: what is interesting about this bill, it does not name china in the legislation itself. it talks about any nation whose currency is misaligned. it is a lower bar than currently right now -- treasury has to prove that a nation like china -- obviously, we all know if is china. they have to conduct willful manipulation of their currency. it's a lower standard and a stricter punishment. host: in all fairness to china, are there any other countries that manipulate their currency in the way this bill wants to go after?

guest: there are some other countries you could make a case. china is obviously, because of the size of the economy and because of the importance of the exports from china, how they compete with the united states, they are the obvious target. host: now the bill is on the other side of the capital. what are its prospects for passage in the house? guest: this is interesting. we were comparing it yesterday. once it reaches the floor, it will absolutely pass. the trick is getting it to the floor. the republicans have said they do not want to do this. boehner has said he does not want to. cantor says he fears a trade war. both of them are trying to call out the white house. host: why does he fear a trade r?

guest: is this bill were to take affect, it would lead to levying tariffs on china. host: speaking of us in the long term, how would this affect people on main street? guest: a number of manufacturers are pushing for this because they feel their goods are unfairly valued. nobody is arguing -- it is

accepted that they do. they do keep it artificially low. that makes their goods cheaper in the marketplace. the estimates range from 25% to 40%. that means our goods are much more expensive in the marketplace. host: we are talking with elizabeth williamson from "the wall street journal" about the senate bill that was passed. if you want to get involved in the conversation, give us a call. you can also reach us by e-mail and twitter. before we get to the phone calls, we want to take a listen

to what speaker boehner had to say. this is what the speaker said to the folks there. >> there has been concern from my part and a lot of quarters in america about how the chinese manipulated their currency. there's been every effort that you can imagine out of our treasury department over the last seven or eight years addressing this with the chinese. there has been a significant improvement in the valuation of china's currency as a result of those conversations. for the congress of the united states to pass legislation to force the chinese to do what is arguably very difficult to do, i think is wrong, and dangerous.

you could start a trade war. given the economic uncertainty here and all around the world -- it is very dangerous. we should not be engaged in this. host: elizabeth williamson of "the wall street journal" -- your thoughts? guest: he lays out the classic argument. the focus more on domestic consumption. the administration and the republicans are aligned in this in that they favored diplomacy and quiet persuasion. china themselves, they will say beijing says this is working, despite the fact that they have internal pressures not to let their currencies rise. a goes up about 0.5% every month. would beestion of what the inflation rate that people like and what is the way to achieve that?

host: our first call for elizabeth williamson from "the wall street journal" comes from baltimore, maryland. go ahead. caller: i had more of a comment and a question. china -- a communist country -- they do not really appreciate democracy. i do not understand how we have such friendly relations with china.

look att's important to the broad picture. this is what the administration always points out. the chinese are an important ally in the region. we worked with him on things like north korea. we also try to cement relations cementkorea, obviously, this week. it is important to see the broader scheme of things and not just knew this in terms of exports and trade. host: next up is niagara falls. kevin on the line for independents. caller: good morning. my view of this is -- we have been losing. it has only gotten better for the last seven or eight years. what do we do in the future?

i cannot see it getting any better. they have an advantage and they're going to keep it. host: the chinese have an advantage? caller: yes, the valuation of --ir dollar -- it's causing our goods are paid more for there. their goods are cheaper here. i wouldn't give it up if i had an advantage. host: we can go back and forth between the house, the senate, and the white house. what is truly the incentive for the chinese to raise the value of their currency? guest: it's important to remember that the chinese not only sell goods here, but they also buy from us. australia has a trade surplus

with china because they are selling them so many raw materials. china has an enormous appetite for raw materials. again, it's a complicated relationship and it's not about the chief manufactured goods that most people think about when they think about china. host: we have this tweet. guest: they are doing is simply to sell more. our trade surplus with china 20 years ago was $10 billion. last year, it was $273 billion. we are a nation of consumers. we are one of the wealthiest consumer nations in the world. we consume a lot of these goods. they are cheap, yes. if they were not as cheap as they are, we still consume them? host: that to the phones.

new york, new york. james, you are on the "washington journal." caller: good morning. a lot of people fail to realize that the nation of china, 1.4 billion people, you have to feed all these people. you have to educate all these people. everything from family planning to military intervention -- in other parts of theworld, which is good business, but there undervaluing the currency, i believe, is another effort to -- they realize they are on a road to emploimplode.

i feel they have a disadvantage. they resort to other means. this trade war everybody talks about -- recently in the news, they were complaining. [inaudible] they cannot even feed themselves. host: elizabeth williamson. guest: the caller points out that this is a whole basket of issues the united states has with china. 1.4 ilion people. the state is under pressure to try to deliver its own ways to

make its goods competitive. we have a lot of issues with china. intellectual property theft is another issue we are negotiating with china on. our government considers it progress that of the software used by the chinese government, 90% of it is pirated from u.s. companies. that's down from 100%. that's seen as progress. currency is the tip of the iceberg. host: we have another tweet. is that true? guest: china has many more means for doing this. they are able to pull all the levers in a way that a free market economy is not. host: back to the phones. texas on the line

for democrats. you are on the "washington journal." go ahead. robert, are you there? you are talking with me now. do you have a question or a comment for elizabeth williamson of "the wall street journal"? caller: i don't think americans have to be afraid. host: we are going to move on. robert seems to be having some problems. next up, on the line for democratrepublicans. caller: hello and good morning. i just got back from china and what i saw what was absolutely mind-boggling.

but construction that's going on in the country, all paid for by our deficit. the build up of their 3.5 million individuals under armed forces, compared to our 1.5. the development of their aircraft carriers, which is an absolute -- it is beautiful. anti-aircraft carrier submarines. it is absolutely scary. i am a retired marine pilot. i do not want to go over there and have to shoot down their aircrafts. host: were you over there on business? caller: no, i was over there as a tourist. it's mindboggling. everywhere you look, there's

construction -- major construction. one person told me -- half the construction trains in the world are in shanghai. host: we are going to lead it there. your response? guest: the construction market is huge. this is what we talked about before when we talk about the need for raw material. we do send tremendous amounts of raw material to china. the fact that china is our banker, that touches on the sensitivity here. with the administration, they know, and the chinese government makes the point -- if we go over there and start preaching to them about their currency, this will not fly with their own public anymore that if they were to come to us and say, "we are your bankers.

you need to fix this, this, and this. you can imagine the cry in the united states if they were to come here and do that. there is this quiet dance that goes on to try to get what the united states wants and needs from them. host: earlier this week, majority leader harry reid was talking about unfair currency manipulation by china and its impact on jobs in the united states. this is what he had to say. >> it's pretty clear by now china undervalues its currency. it has caused -- cost american jobs by unjustly tilting the playing field. america's trade deficit with china has ballooned from $10 billion in 1990 to $ 270 billion today. to many of those lost jobs came

from the manufacturing sector. american businesses do not need special advantages to compete. they just need an even playing field. host: does this legislation even out the playing field? guest: it's hard to say. undoubtably, lots are -- lots of jobs are being lost. to put a number on that is really hard. there are so many factors that have contributed to the decline of the manufacturing sector. host: in an article in this morning's "the wall street journal" by your colleagues, they write --

breakdown those numbers for us. is the gap getting smaller or larger. guest: as consumer spending increases, you will see that gap widen. what the currency devaluation as americans start to spend more and feel more optimistic about the future, they will buy more from china, so consequently

-- consequently the deficit will grow. host: it the chinese athletes or adjust the value of their currency and it starts to go up, it will benefit us here in the united states. what does it do for countries, the neighboring countries in the pacific rim? is there some think the president can say to the south korean president that may help the overall situation? guest: i think including the trade agreement with south korea was an important step. winners and losers here. host: our next call comes from

walkie, wisconsin. david of the line for independents. -- from milwaukee, wisconsin. caller: could you tell was the top three segments of the economy are. she is that information not readily available. -- is that information not readily available? thank you. guest: i would say manuftured goods, steel, and electronics would be the industry's better vote hurthat are most hurt. china feels like it is really hurting by undervaluing the currency. in raw materials you do not have value added you see it in a stark way. some of the other industries

have other fish to fry. the electronic industry is very concerned about currencies. they feel like if we engage in a trade war with china what you might ultimately get is nothing on yjr og [ the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 237. the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 237. the nays are 166. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> mr. speaker.

mr. speaker, request permission to speak out of turn for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. yarmuth: request permission to speak out of turn for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. yarmuth: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, on october 3, eight democrats and eight republicans met in an epic competition here at columbia country club in washington to contest for the 10th time the battle for the roll call rupp -- ryder cup. this competition is intense but with great sportsmanship and, of course, the ultimate

beneficiary is the competition which has raised more than $1 million in the last 10 years. despite an average age of 58.6 years which means all but one of our players was on the senior tour, we had a great victory. our sixth consecutive victory on the democratic side. and i want to congratulate our team of baca, clyburn, courtney, sires, cooper, doyle, richmond and myself and may we look forward to an even tougher competition next year, but i do want to say that the principles that the first tee of spouses, things like honesty and integrity and sportsmanship and responsibility were all on great display during this competition, even to the extent

that trey gowdy and mike mulvaney called a penalty on themselves during one of the matches. i think up with the principles of the first tee. we look forward to next year's matches. i yield to the republican side, mr. crenshaw. mr. crenshaw: on behalf of the republican participants, i want to congratulate captain yarmuth and his team for their outstanding play and for their narrow victory. and i want to thank all the members of the republican team for participating, for showing up and i think the big winners of the first tee, want to thank all the sponsors because over the years they've raised over $1.5 million for this organization that is involved in all 50 states, touches the lives of about five million young people to try to teach them through the game of golf about honesty, integrity, about character, about sportsmanship.

so, again, i thank everyone for being involved. i'll just remember the words of those people that watched the university of florida football team and that is, wait until next year. thank you. mr. yarmuth: i thank the gentleman. once again -- once again, it was an incredible competition. as trey gowdy said this morning, if you were there during this event and during the event preceding the night before you could not have told who was republican or who was democrat because they were so nice. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote.

without objection, five-minute voting shall continue. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 244, the nays are 173. the resolution is agreed to. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask that h.r. 2273 be brought up for immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman have a general leave request? mr. shimkus: yes, i do, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on h.r. 2273 and to insert extraneous

material. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 431 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 2273. the chair appoints the gentleman from kansas, mr. yoder, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 2273 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to amend subtitle d of the solid waste disposal act to facilitate recovery and beneficial use and provide for the proper management and disposal of materials generated by the combustion of coal and other

fossil fuels. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus, and the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i rise in support of h.r. 2273, the coal residuals -- mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise in support of h.r. 2273 the coal residual resuss and management act and 50% of our nation's electricity generation comes from coal. this means 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 issues 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 location. the chemical characteristics of coal ash put in some or in between these two extremes. for years states have been successfully managing these nonhazardous waste through the municipal solid waste programs, yet even though e.p.a. has confirmed on multiple occasions that coal ash does not trigger its own toxicity test to be labeled as hazardous regulation as proposed by the e.p.a. in june of 2010 that would do just that. e.p.a.'s regulation would have prevented coal ash from being governed under municipal solid waste programs despite its nonhazardous nature and e.p.a. saying in its proposed rule that it preferred the municipal solid waste option. the results of e.p.a.'s regulations would have been devastating on the effects of jobs, higher utility rates at home, and cripple a very successful emerging parties 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 the 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 e.p.a. 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 ground water protection and detection and monitoring liners at land phils, corrective action when environmental damage occurs, structural stability criteria, financial assurance,

and record keeping. e.p.a. will continue to have an oversight role to ensure states are meeting their obligations. e.p.a. 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 program 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, e.p.a. 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 and empowers states, saves jobs, controls public and private cost, and protects people and the environment. h.r. 2273 has been endorsed -- has endorsements by diverse stakeholder community as well from the environmental council of the state, state and environmental officials, the beneficial use community, the labor unions, and coalition of regulated stakeholders. mr. speaker, some of our colleagues are going to oppose this bill based upon misinformation 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 do that is required in other laws do not improve the environment more 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 this house for regulatory certainty and employment 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 industry, 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. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. waxman: today the assault on the environment in this body continues. two weeks ago the house voted to repeal the health standards in

the clean air act and block the environmental protection agency from regulating toxic emission from power plants. earlier this week we voted to block e.p.a. from regulating toxic emissions from cement plants. and yesterday we voted to block the e.p.a. from regulating toxic emissions from incinerators. today we'll vote on whether to stop e.p.a. from regulating toxic coal ash. on december 22, 2008, a coal ash impoundment in kingston, tennessee, burst, releasing 5.4 million cubic yards of toxic sludge blanketting the emory river and surrounding land and creating a superfund site that could cost up to $1.2 billion to clean up. last year e.p.a. proposed regulations to ensure stronger oversight of coal ash

impoundment in order to prevent disasters like the one in kingston and to protect ground water and drinking water from the threat of contamination. today we are voting to stop e.p.a. from acting. the agency had proposed two alternatives for regulating coal guseton residuals. one proposal was to regulate these wastes under the subtitle c of the sources conservation recovery act as a hazardous waste. the other proposal was to regulate under subtitle d as a nonhazardous solid waste. under both proposals there would be a minimum federal standard developed to protect human health and the environment. those standards would adress impoundments like in kingston and also ensure that basic controls like the use of liners, ground water monitoring, and dust control meet a minimum level of effectiveness.

but the legislation that is being brought to the floor today blocks both of these e.p.a. proposals. it replaces those proposals with an ineffective program that won't ensure the safe disposal of coal ash. at hearings in the energy and commerce committee, we heard testimony about the devastating impacts contamination from coal combustion waste can cause. we learned of contaminated drinking water supplies, of ruined property values. we have learned about improper disposal of coal ash presenting catastrophic risks from rupture of containment structures and cause cancer and other illnesses from long-term exposure to leaking chemicals. but this legislation does not reflect what we learned about the dangers of improper disposal of coal ash. under each of our environmental laws, until the republicans

repealed them, congress has established a legal standard when delegating programs to the states. that was done on bipartisan votes. these standards are the yardstick by which it is determined whether a state's effort measures up. they ensure minimum level of effort and protection throughout the nation. this approach has worked well because it prevents a race to the bottom by the states. but this legislation does not include any legal standard at all to establish a minimum level of safety. as a result, the public can have little confidence that this legislation if enacted would result in increased safety. and to the extent new safety requirements are established, nearly all of them can be waived at a state's discretion. this legislation appears to create a new program for the safe disposal of coal ash, but the decisions of whether or not

to provide a safe disposal or whether or not to protect ground water or whether or not to protect against toxic dust blowing off disposal sites will remain state decisions. there will be no minimum federal health standard. the result will inevitably be uneven and inconsistent rules by the states, some states will do a good job, others will do a poor job. and when they do a poor job, the public will pay the price just as they do today. . if this legislation is adopted, no one should be fooled this won't protect communities living here waste disposal sites, it won't make high risk impoundment of coal ash safe. it won't stop contamination of drinking water and it won't create jobs and in fact it won't do much of anything. like the cement and incinerator bills the house has debated, this bill also violates the

discretionary cut-go. c.b.o. found the legislation would cost e.p.a. $2 million over the next five years. this cost is not offset in the legislation system of once again, for the third time in two weeks, the republicans are abandoning their discretionary cut-go rule. mr. chairman, this legislation is deficient in both process and substance and i urge all members to oppose it and i reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. >> thank you, madam chairman. mr. shimkus: i recognize mr. latta for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. latta: i rise in support of h.r. 2273, designating coal ash as a hazardous waste as the e.p.a. proposed in june, 2010, would raise prices for families and businesses and destroy the coal industry and all jobs

associated with it. h.r. 2273 creates a unique regulatory system at the state level. i have an email from the environmental protection agency here asking me to support this legislation and allowing them to do their jobs in ohio. if this legislation is not passed and signed into law, the e.p.a. will overthrow years of precedent and declare coal ash a pollutant despite findings that toxicity levels in coal ash are well below the level that require a hazardous waste designation. in their 2008 designation, they say it does not warrant regulation as a hazardous waste and doing so would be environmentally counterproductive. it is estimated that meeting the requirements under the proposal would cost $250 to

$450 per ton, as opposed to $100 per ton in the current system. in 2006, 200,000 tons of coal ash was produced. costs aside, about 45% of the coal ash generated is recycled, being used as an additive in cement, wall board, roofing materials and road-based fill materials, snow and ice control. while all this is completely safe, designating coal ash as a hazardous waste would lead to billions of more cost each year this legislation keeps the jobs on the market and for those reasons i support the legislation and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california is reck noozed. mr. waxman: i yield at this point two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. greep.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. breen: thank you, madam speaker, i thank the ranking member for allowing me time to speak. i rise and express my support for h.r. 2273, the coal combustion residuals reuse and management act. as a member of congress in oil and gas and refinery and chemical plant area, i've learned more in the last eight months at coal ash than i ever wanted. to we know coal combustion waste can be recycled and beneficially used. wisconsin recycles 97% of their coal ash. encouraging recycling of coal ash means less of it in land fills this egreat question is how do we ensure we have enough environmental protections without discouraging beneficial use? as ranking member of the environment and economy subcommittee of energy and commerce, i believe this is a a vastly improved version of what

we considered for markup which banned e.p.a. from deeming coal ash a hazardous material. this legislation would be further improved by adopting the manager's amendment later. there's a patchwork of state programs to regulate coal and combustion waste. h.r. 2273 would for the first time establish comprehensive minimum federal standards. contrary to statements made, h r. 2273 does include groundwater monitoring provisions, the ledge slay -- the legislation applies existing measures and corrective action measures. the facilities will be required to respond to any releases and states have the ability to require those who don't meet the standards to close. it includes a provision championing my good friend and colleague from pennsylvania, congressman dole, which would include closure plants and

drainage standards. i know some have concerns about the legislation but we worked diligently to make improvements in the bill. the assertion that it does nothing to protect the environment, the e.p.a. has no current authority and this pill for the first time sets the standards. i ask unanimous consent to place the remainder of my statement in the record. the speaker pro tempore: the request is covered by general leave. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. shimkus: thank you, madam chairman. i recognize a member of the subcommittee, mr. harper, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi is recognized for one minute. mr. harper: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in support of h.r. 2273, the coal residuals reuse and management act. h.r. 2273 is on the house floor as part of the republican regulatory relief agenda to reduce job-killing government regulation on businesses. i view the apparent intention of the environmental protection agency to regulate coal ash as

a hazardous material as another decision by the agency to regulate business without the use of facts, science, or common sense. everybody wants a clean environment. we all want clean air and clean water but decisions on how to keep our environment clean should be based on science and not political rhetoric. my state relies on coal and coal ash for jobs and electricity. i've heard from utilities in my district about the negative impact that regulating coal ash as a hazardous material would have on rate payers and on employees. i'm happy to support h.r. 2273 today to rein in an out of control e.p.a. and to protect the interests of my constituents. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. green: i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from florida.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. castor: i thank my colleague for yielding time. in december of 2008, the communities surrounding the tennessee valley authority coal-fired plant in kingston, tennessee, suffered one of the worst environmental disasters in the nation's history. 5.4 million cubic yards or over one billion gallons of coal ash sludge covered the neighborhood after a dam break. this is along the emery river. it damaged 42 homes. that disaster raised a lot of questions and concerns about how coal ash is stored all across the country. in that case, the t.v.a. used an above-ground, unlined storage pond that broke loose after a heavy rain. some states have appropriate storage stan tards, like my home state of florida. they're appropriate. but the problem is, some states do not have the appropriate standards. i believe e.p.a. was right to begin an appropriate national

review of guidelines for proper coal ash disposal. the problem here is the g.o.p. bill stops that effort in its tracks. the g.o.p. bill is too liberal and too permissive. i have relayed to e.p.a. that many actors in the field recycle coal ash material in my hometown in tampa, we send a lot of coal ash for the building of the new panama canal expansion, we use it in wall board, and this needs to be encouraged. we want to see the beneficial reuse industry flourish. recycled ash should not be labeled as hazardous and i don't think it would be labeled as special waste. i encourage the e.p. a: to take this approach. i proposed an amendment to support this approach after discussion with industry leaders but the republicans ruled it out of order. without it, the g.o.p. bill goes too far. they are abdicating their

responsibility to protect communities from disasters like kingston. the bottom line is, we all have a responsibility to ensure that coal ash is disposed of in ways that protect mustn'ts across the country and protect human health. the g.o.p. bill does not take that approach, does not take its responsibility seriously, it could allow a disaster like t.v.a.'s kings tennessee catastrophe to happen again and therefore i urge my colleagues to oppose the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. shimkus: yes, madam chairman, before i yield time to mr. olson, let me yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. shimkus: h.r. 2273 includes structural integrity technical requirements on impoundments that do not exist today. they allow only those that are sound and operating in a good manner to continue to operate. in kingstop, what's never mentioned, the cleanup of the

kingston spill, all that went into nonhazardous lan phil. this is a debate about hazardous and nonhazardous, e.p.a. has ruled numerous times coal come bustash is not hazardous. that's why there's confusion. i yield two minutes to a member of the committee, mr. olson of texas. the speaker pro tempore: the swrelt is recognized for two minutes. mr. olson: i thank the chair of the subcommittee. madam speaker, i rise in support of h r. 2273, the coal ash residuals and reuse management act, by supporting h.r. 2273 i'm also rising in support of american jobs and environmental protection. a concept that may be lost on a few of my distinguished colleagues from the other side of the aisle. this piece of legislation will for the first time establish

minimum federal requirements for the management and disposal of coal ash. not only will h r. 2273 provide certainty for state regulators as well as manufacturers that rely on coal ash as building material, it will keep coal ash out of our landfills and prevent unnecessary hikes in electricity rates. e.p.a. has delayed rule making because they're weighing two options. one, continue to regulate coal ash as nonhazardous or two, ignoring science to classify it as a hazardous waste. e.p.a. has already determined on numerous occasions that ole -- that coal ash should not be classified as hazardous waste. they came to that conclusion most recently in 2000. over a decade ago. under the clinton administration. in fact, e.p.a.'s finding went further, arguing, and this is a

quote, regulate coal ash as a hazardous waste would be environmentally counterproductive because it would unnecessarily stigmatize coal ash and impede its beneficial use, end quote. meanwhile, due to uncertainty by e.p.a.'s inaction on this rule, coal ash industry is crashing. regulating coal ash as hazardous waste flies in the face of years of research and e.p.a.'s own findings. coal ash as a hazardous waste would force requirements on our utilities. i urbling my colleagues to vote for american jobs and a clean environment. vote for h.r. 2273. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. green: we yield three minutes to our colleague and member of the committee, congressman doyle of pennsylvania. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes.

mr. doyle: thank you, madam speaker. coal ash is a serious issue for this country and especially for pennsylvania. noorly all of my constituents -- nearly all of my constituents get their power from coal and with that comes its byproduct, coal ash, it's an unavoidable part of our power generation in pennsylvania. though the commonwealth of pennsylvania has some of the toughest coal ash disposal standards in the country, i've been convinced coal ash needs to be federally regulated under the resource conservation and recovery act. we had the opportunity to vote on the coal ash issue several time this is year. we've seen policy riders on appropriation bills and legislation that tied the hands of the federal government to regulate coal ash. i haven't supported a sinnle one. let's be clear, i have no record of hamstringing e.p.a. or violating protections but

there's a lot of half-truths about this bill and i think we should clear things up. for the first time, coal ash disposal will be federally regulated under rcra through programs run by the states. though implemented by the states, the permit programs will be developed according to federal standards from section 4010c of rcra, the baseline for these programs that require criteria necessary to protect human health and the requirement. we heard it will create a race to the bottom where they will shift to the states. if this were a real concern, utilities in pennsylvania would be doing this as we have very strict regulation of coal ash. but utilities in coal ash don't ship their coal ash out of state because it's not economically feasible to do so. . i'm pleased to hear good and informed debate this morning

with important points own both sides. we have made significant improvements to this bill and there's still more that can be done. but we need the chance to move legislation that will for the first time allow us to federally regulate coal ash. i believe this bill was the necessary vehicle to move that goal forward and i encourage my colleagues to support it. i yield any remaining time i might have to mr. green. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. green: i thank my colleague. i think what congressman dole was saying, we are doing something here we don't do often in this house. we actually have a bill that came out of committee that has bipartisan support. it moved the bill to where e.p.a. does not have the authority under current law unless they label it toxic, coal ash. and we are giving them some oversight over what our states have been doing and in most cases very good. so that's why this bill is something we don't do on this floor in the last 10 months very often. we actually compromise and come up with good legislation and we hope the senate will pass it. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back.

the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. shimkus: i recognize two minutes to the congressman from ohio, mr. johnson. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. mr. johnson: madam speaker, today i rise in strong support of h.r. 2273, the coal residuals reuse and management act of 2011. unfortunately, this legislation is necessary because last june the obama administration proposed two new rules in its ongoing war on coal that could cost tens of thousands of jobs and tens of millions of dollars to our g.d.p. the two new rules are a departure from decades of accepted practice of allowing states to regulate coal ash. furthermore, e.p.a.'s current actions fly in the face of two previous e.p.a. studies, one study from the clinton administration which found that coal ash shouldn't be regulated by the e.p.a. as a hazardous material. now, keep in mind these new rules will not only negatively affect the coal in the utility industries, but also will lead to job losses and increase costs

for the infrastructure and construction industries. furthermore, coal residuals are a key component of many of the materials used by these trades. if the e.p.a. is successful in classifying coal residuals as a hazardous material, the cost of the raw goods in these vital industries would skyrocket. this bipartisan legislation not only stops the onerous proposed rule from going forward, but also allows states to regulate coal residuals by using an existing and successful federal regulatory program. this compromised bill sets realistic and enforceable federal standards while leaving the regulation enforcement to the states. state environmental officials including my home state of ohio see this type of regulation as a model for the future because it provides strong health and environmental protection with minimal involvement. at a time when the president and the other side of the aisle are stumping for their so-called jobs proposal, madam speaker, i find it confusing and inic that

this -- ironic that this administration would propose rules that would cost tens ever thousands of job losses and lead to loss of billions of dollars from america's g.d.p. this legislation will save the administration from themselves while saving jobs and still protecting human health and the environment, i strongly urge my colleagues to support the legislation. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: madam chair, i just want to say to my good friends who feel that we have to move the bill forward and get a better bill, i understand that, and this bill's going to move forward, but for those who really want a good bill, we are not getting one out of this house. it's better to vote no to show that you want a better bill than to vote yes for the small changes that the republicans have given to some of our democrats. it may improve the bill on the margins, but the bill is not good enough for an aye vote. i still urge members to vote no. i yield at this time to the

gentleman from virginia, three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. connolly: i thank my friend. madam chairman, the house majority has brought yet another anti-e.p.a. bill to the house floor. last week the house passed legislation to increase mercury and particulate pollution from cement factories, poisoning fetuses and increasing the incidents of disease such as long cancer and emphysema. this week the house passed legislation to increase mercury and particular pollution from industrial boilers. these follow some 125 other anti-environmental bills riders and amendments that the majority has already tried to pass this year. h.r. 2273, the legislation on the floor today, is but the latest assault on the environment and public health. this bill would block the e.p.a.

from issuing science-based standards to manage the disposal of coal ash. unfortunately, the majority rejected language which had the support of a number of utilities which would have protected e.p.a.'s authority to issue health based standards under the clean water act. if the majority had protected rather than curtailed this authority to issue regulations based on science not politics, then i could support the legislation before us today. mr. waxman's offering an amendment which would protect the e.p.a.'s clean water act authority and if that amendment passes then perhaps most of us could vote for final passage of the bill. such standards clearly are necessary. or empowerment such as the one in kingston, tennessee, would not fail. when it failed in tennessee it released a billion gallons, a billion gallons of toxic sludge into the river. fortunately that was located

downstream which contained unparalleled populations of fresh water mussels and other species. the clinch has more species of fresh water mussels than the entire continent of europe. according to the nature conservativecy, the rivers run nearly parallel courses through the remote mountains and valleys of southwestern virginia and northeastern tennessee. these last free flowing tributaries of the tennessee river harbor the nation's highest concentrations of globally rare and imperiled fish and fresh water mussels. these watersheds are the most biodiverse region east of the mississippi river and among the top biodiverse places in all of the united states. h.r. 2273 would increase the risk of coal ash spills in the upper clinch, hallston, and powell rivers potentially causing many species to go extinct. human health is also at risk as a result much poorly regulated

coal mining in appalachia. scientist from west virginia university have conducted extensive research on the human health impacts of coal mining in local populations. they found residents of coal mining regions have significantly higher rates, chronic heart, respiratory, and kidney illnesses. coal mining regions of appalachia have higher rates of cancer and premature mortality with higher rates -- i would ask for another minute. mr. waxman: i yield an additional 30 seconds. mr. connolly: imagine if they allowed a few gold miners in grand canyon to block protection. imagine if loggers and sheep hearders had blocked legislation of yosemite. today we confront a similar challenge. trying to protect appalachia. i urge my colleagues to vote no on h.r. 2273. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. shimkus: before i yield time

to dr. roe, let me request that i be given time. the chair: the gentleman has 17 minutes remaining. and the gentleman from california has 13 minutes remaining. mr. shimkus: i'd like to yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. shimkus: just to my friend from virginia i hope he'll look at the manager's amendment. it keefs up the list for ground water protection. 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 toxic landfills? the reality is the cleanup materials did not go into toxic landfills. we want to clear up some false

statements here. now i'd like to yield two minutes to dr. roe from tennessee. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mr. roe: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, rise today in support of h.r. 2273, this bipartisan bill will protect the beneficial use of coal ash while also providing for consistent state regulatory authority to store and regulate coal ash under the solid waste disposal act. my home state of tennessee has seen the problems coal ash can cause. in december of 2008, t.v.a.'s coal-pired plant in kingston, tennessee, had the largest coal related spill in u.s. history. this resulted in some 1.1 billion of ash flooding parts of the tennessee valley. there is no question we must have proper oversight. madam speaker i visited that site previously. the reality is coal ash is abundant and can be used and economically diversely. the use of coal ash keeps electric costs low and for the consumer an provides low cost

yet durable construction materials. from 1999 until 2009, 519 million tons of coal ash were recycled. 38% of all ash. using ash decreases greenhouse emissions. the bill we are considering today ensures the safe management and disposal of coal ash by ensuring existing regulatory standards are enforced. without interfering with state regulations and storage standards. this will help prevent future disasters like the one in kingston because it encourages investment in recycling and reuse of ash in a way that benefits contractors, consumers, and american job creators. the coal residual reuse and management act is a bipartisan solution to the challenges that arise from coal ash and safeguards the consumer and environment without hurting the economy. it is imperative that we pass this bill because if we do not the administration's proposed regulations under the resource

and conservation recovery act will move forward to classify coal ash as hazardous, increasing costs for the coal fired plants which would put thousands of jobs in jeopardy and drive up electricity costs. america's job creators cannot afford another regulatory burden. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and yb yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. california, excuse me. mr. waxman: thank you, madam chair. i just want to make a correction for the record. some people have suggested that it's going to be considered hazardous waste site if they dispose of this waste. we don't believe that's true. we don't want to treat it as if it were household garbage without the guarantees to protect the public health of the environment. there can be something in between. it doesn't have to be considered hazardous waste. and that's exactly the kind of

proposal we ought to be looking at. to say we are considering it hazardous waste is an incorrect statement. may i inquire how much time each side has? the chair: the gentleman from california has 12 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from illinois has 14 1/2 minutes. mr. waxman: madam chair, at this point i'm going to yield to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for three minutes. mr. ellison: thank you, madam speaker. thank you. i'd like to thank the ranking member of the energy and commerce committee and the chair. we are seeing a trend here in the house of representatives, madam speaker, attacking the e.p.a. and not working on jobs. this bill does nothing to regulate coal ash in a way that protects the environment and public health. this bill wants to give regulatory power to states, but there is no national minimum standard for permitting -- for state permitting programs in this bill.

the municipal solid waste standards used by this dangerous piece of legislation are inadequate to protect our communities from dangerous toxins. many of the toxins found in coal residuals are simply dangerous to public health and are known cancer causing agents. just a few of the toxins found in coal ash include arsenic, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, and a bunch of other stuff that's hard to pronounce. this bill will allow these toxins to enter our drinking water and dozens of communities across the country. on top of releasing toxins into our drinking water, h.r. 2273 does nothing to promote recycling of coal ash. instead it promotes the indefinite storage of coal ash which further the leeching of dangerous carcinogens and neuro toxins into our drinking water. additionally, this bill denies the e.p.a. from instituting a dead line or cleanup standard for disposal sites that have already contaminated ground water. it has been 40 weeks since the

republican majority in the house has been in the majority. and we haven't voted on a single jobs bill, madam speaker. this train of bills dealing with cement emissions, dealing with the train act, dealing with boiler mact rules, and now today coal ash suggests that the republican majority believes that the problem to creating jobs in america is that americans want to breathe clean air and drink clean water, and it's too expensive to do. this is a false statement, this is not true. and i hope that we reject this bill today. i yield whack the balance of my time. 7. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. shimkus: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. shimkus: to my friend from minnesota, i would quote a letter that says there's an estimated 183 to 360,000 job losses if we don't pass this

bill. this claim that this hurts the recycling, when then you define coal combustion residuals as toxic is nonsense call. it makes no sense. if you really want to encourage recycling, this bill protects reviking industry, it protects coal ash from going into concrete. if you label it toxic, which is what e.p.a. is trying to do, that's very misleading and i think my friends on the other side are having a hard time grappling with what the e.p.a. is trying to do because that's the direction they want to move it to. with that, i'd like to yield to my colleague from illinois, two minutes, mr. hultgren. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. hultgren: thank you. i rise in support of this common sense bill that is good for jobs an the economy. i thank my good friend,

congressman shimkus, for his important work on this bill. what we're confronting here today is another classic example of e.p.a.'s regulatory overreach, threatening jobs and livelihoods across the country. this is an issue that concern misconstituents as thousands of jobs are in industries using coal combustion residuals. but the jobs impact is not limited to my district, it's nationwide. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this pro-growth, pro-jobs bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: the supporters of this bill claim the legislation will save jobs. the main evidence is a report by the electric power research institute that claims that regulating coal ash as hazardous waste would lead to the loss of 300,000 jobs but this claim is wrong. for example, epri study estimates job loss by assuming that there would be 100% reduction in recycling and

beneficial reuse. this assumption is based on no analysis whatsoever and it'sed a ots -- it's at odds with a survey done by the national precast concrete association which says 84% of their members would continue to use fly ash even if it were to be regulated as hazardous. e.p.a. requested that epri issue a state optometrist correct the misstatement and misrepresentations made in this report and which have been repeated here today. epri study is flawed and should not be rely on. we need to reject these argues that in order to have -- to have jobs we need to allow contamination of our groundwater and allow human health to be jeopardized by coal ash. i would like to yield at this time to the gentlelady from the state of maryland, ms. edwards, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. edwards: thank you, madam chairwoman. it seems that hardly a day goes

by in this chamber when the republican majority fails to create jobs, endangers public health and deep sixes the environment. today is no different. coal plants are usually accompanied by coal ash ponds and dry coal ash land fills and they're disproportionately located in impoverished areas. 2/3 of all of the ash ponds in the united states are located where household income is below the national medium. what that means is that poor people don't have a voice in what the majority is trying to do. we can't rely on a voluntary patchwork of state regulations which is what this bill would have us do. now in my own home state of maryland, we have a decent record of environmental regulations but i can't say that about our neighboring states. we need a national way to look at how we're contaminating or not our environment. the contamination of groundwater at the coal ash plant in maryland resulted in the single largest fine ever

imposed by our state's department of the environment. a $57 million settlement for the homeowners and business. the problem is that money can't pay for medical treatment an compensate for the loss of property value in the right way. but it can't bring back health. it can't reverse the developmental disables, or presever the sense of home for people who are displaced. i said some of the affected homeowners in that settlement because even in this case we see discrimination. the neighboring population of odenton, maryland, is a rural, african-american community, still battling contamination from the turner-pitts site from the same plant. the waste is feeding into an important sort of potable water for the entire washington, d.c. area. they have yet to receive compensation for lost health or property values. they got a steady supply of

free bottled water courtesy of the polluting power plant. and an extension of a shopping nool cover the contamination site. not to cover the contamination but the contamination site. mr. waxman: i yield the gentlelady 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. edwards: given that we know that in poor, minority populations, they have the worst health outcomes by any measure and coal ash impoundments are disproportionately located in low income communities that are less likely to have medical access to insurance and care, we have to be concerned. this body needs to be concerned and if we pass this bill, we will unfairly expose these vulnerable communities to higher levels of threatening health and property risks than the rest of the population. i think, madam chair, we can do a lot better and in this congress, we should be looking out for people, not failing to create jobs, contaminating

their water and poisoning their air. with that, i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. ms. shimkus: i yield myself such time as i may cop sume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. shimkus: the e.p.a. 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 e.p.a., the same e.p.a. people say we're trying to gut. i will continue to hold up the study that says because of the recycling aspect of coal ash, that gos 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. when you tear down those structures they have to go in toxic land fills. i remind my colleagues from the spill, none of the spilled

cleanup went to toxic land fills. with that, i yield five minutes to my colleague from west virginia, the author of the legislation, mr. mckinley. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mckinley: thank you, madam chairwoman. i rise in support of this bipartisan, pro-job, poe-environment, pro-health legislation. after 30 years of debate, of charges an countercharges, we can finally get this done. just as an example of the disparity and misrepresentation here, we talked about -- on mercury that was discussed earlier, fluorescent light bulbs in our homes contain mercury in a higher concentration than coal ash. but yet, fluorescent light bulbs are disposed of in a way we're going to take care of now

under this bill. there are two parts to this bill. the first part removes the stigma of the e.p.a. classifying fly ash as a hazardous material. several studies by the e.p.a. have concluded time and time again that the chemical characteristics within coal ash are nonhazardous. we've already heard the advantages of the recycling, but i just want to remind the gentleman from california that in the subcommittee markup, he supported the baldwin amendment that prohibited the e.p.a. from regulating coal ash as a hazardous material. yet he continues to refer to coal ash as toxic. this is simply unacceptable. one cannot have his cake and eat it too. the second part of the bill which deals with disposal was worked on with democrats, state agencies and a cross-section of stake holders during subcommittee, full committee

and before this bill came to the house floor. ultimately, should this legislation become law, and new scientifically based factors arise this legislation will allow for the flexibility of the states and the e.p.a. to work together to adjust the coal ash program accordingly. if a state has no program, fly ash impoundments won't be permitted by the e.p.a. until they do. if a state opts not to have a fly ash program, the e.p.a. will have primacy. if the government should allow -- should lower the drinking water standard at any time because of changes in chemical characteristics, such as those found in coal ash, then the states will have to comply to those new standards. but should a state such as

proposed in california decide to lower their standards, below the federal level, then they have the option to do that under the 10th amendment. h.r. 2273 simply allows for a flexible system and working relationship for the state and federal government to carry out a long overdue coal ash program at the state level with stringent requirements for liners, ground water monitoring, financial assurance, dam safety and integrity. most of all, protection for the health and environment. all of this will be achieved with the assistance, approval and oversight by the e.p.a. i ask all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan, pro-job legislation and with that, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. backman: may i inquire how

much time we have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has seven minutes and the gentleman from illinois has eight minutes. mr. waxman: the gentleman from west virginia that just spoke said that i was inconsistent because i voted for the amendment in my committee so i can't have my cake an eat it too. i assure you, i don't want a cake made out of coal ash. coal ash has a lot of chemicals in it that i think most people would understand raise a problem of toxicity. arsenic, an timny, -- antimony, nickel, celine yum, thallium -- selenium; thallium and others that pose a threat to human health and the environment. it seems to me what we're hearing, for example, the gentleman from illinois, the

waste in kingston was not disposed of in a hazardous waste landfill and he offered this as proof that the materials are not hazardous. these materials contain these toxic constituents and if they're not disposed of properly, they will harm human health and the environment. proper disposal does not mean disposal in a hazardous waste landfill. it means disposal in dry landfills that have the necessary safeguards. those safeguards are not in this bill. we've offered to work with the republican majority to clarify this issue and to find a middle ground that i think in substance could solve these concerns but they, again, are not interested in working with us and so they're moving forward with the bill that does not live up to its billing. at this point, i want to yield four minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran who is the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee

that deals with these very issues. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. moran: i thank the distinguished leader from california, mr. waxman. over 30 years ago, congress accepted the legal responsibility to protect the human health, conserve our natural resources, reduce waste, ensure that waste is managed in an environmentally sound manner. that's the underpinning of what this argument is about. now every year, america generates about 61 million metric tons of coal ash and slag. and about 17 million metric tons of coal sludge from utility and industrial boilers. now, mr. waxman mentioned what's in this sludge and slag. and that's why we're raising this argument because it contains all the chemicals that

mr. waxman referred to, arsenic, chromium, cobalt, lead, mercury, it includes radioactive elements like thallium and radium. this is very toxic, this material. but we also know that coal ash slag and sludge have a number of beneficial reuses in concrete and roads and roofing. and e.p.a. is not trying to ban the beneficial reuse of coal ash. in fact e.p.a. proposed two separate possible regulations so that you could have a robust dialogue on the most effective means of coal ash disposal. e.p.a. wants to ensure that the ultimate decision is based upon the best available science and technical data and is taken with the fullest public input. e.p.a. had extensive public

involvement, thousands of public comments, eight public hearings around the country. now, this legislation would deprive e.p.a. of the ability to use the best available sighens in its decisions and it would negate those thousands of public comments that have been received since the rule's proposal. it would block the current progress on federal safeguards before the regulations have been finalized. now, what's the problem with the approach that's been made by the other side? well, it would create a patchwork of compliance with up to 50 different state by state regulations and it would block federal enforcement of what is clearly a national problem. it's a national problem because states with lax coal ash disposal retirements and it will probably be economic competition

to reduce the retirements as much as possible, well, those states would be allowed to pollute the streams and rivers of downstream states. and the federal government would be powerless to do anything about it. that's why thighs interstate impacts are the very reason federal regulation is appropriate, necessary, and in fact, is our legal responsibility. now, we understand that many people are concerned about this. granted. and a number of claims have been made that it would ban the ability to develop concrete and road material and so on. but this rule has not been finalized. e.p.a. has received so many comments and suggestions that it

would seem that there is a -- that we are in a situation where we can structure a rule that not only takes care of the concerns but protects the public health. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. waxman: yield an additional 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. moran: i would have to say as important as it is to protect jobs, it's important to protect lives. we have a responsibility to protect lives. you heard what's in this material. you can see why it's a national responsibility. so let's fulfill that national responsibility. rely on the e.p.a. to use scientific findings. let's protect the public health and do the right thing and defeat this legislation. thank you, madam speaker. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: i yield such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. shimkus: to my friend from

virginia, he is correct. in some states have laxer standards. in fact your governor sent us a letter in which i quote, h.r. 22 73 is an approach to dealing with c.c.r. although it would require effort to implement in virginia. so our point is this is going to help states im-- those states who 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 the coal combustion residual community, the recyclers have no market. who wants to build a school with concrete when the e.p.a. made six months, a year from now say that concrete's all toxic? it's already had a negative impact in that job sector, and

we have quoted studies both back and forth. the manager's amendment requires an assessment for all these constituents that you identified and i would just highlight just because it's a constituent doesn't mean it's hazardous. these blue line is the hazardous level, the green is the amount. you could make the claim that there's hazardous material in honey nut cheerios. the question is what's the amount? and that's what this gets to is the amount. e.p.a. has consistently said this doesn't raise the standard of toxic. but now they want to promulgate -- even under the clinton administration when i served here, their e.p.a. said it doesn't rise to the standard. the fear of the e.p.a. involvement is what's causing a problem in the recycling sector. and where's all this waste going to go? it's going to go fill up the landfills.

in two years all the landfills will be filled up unless we continue to recycle this coal fly ash. i see my colleague standing. i yield. mr. moran: he is a good friend from illinois. but as we know air streams and rivers and other bodies of water don't stop at a state's border. and if that is the case, how is it fair for one state to let that pollution go into a downstream state's water? that's our concern. mr. shimkus: reclaiming my time. the manager's amount that we'll debate will talk about for the first time an analysis on run-on and run-off which was recommendation from folks on your side of the aisle for us to consider. which we have now included and will take that up in the manager's amendment debate when we get to the amendments. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. shimkus: you have a lot of time. i would be happy to yield. i do want time to close.

mr. waxman: thank you very much. you make the claim we are trying to define this and label it as toxic, and i agree with that point. i don't think we ought to deny that there are in coal ash relatively high concentrations that could be -- that are hazardous and if they are improperly managed it could leech out and pose a potential hazard. mr. shimkus: reclaiming my time. that's why this new standard under the municipal waste solid act will have liners for the first time. right now there is no liners. that's a bettering ament from past years, but this is a fix. this is a fix to that issue of leeching out. this is a fix to the possibility of the damage because we are going to be able to look at that. working in conjunction with the e.p.a. and of course the people closest to the citizens are the state and local levels. mr. waxman: the point is not accurate for existing.

it would apply to future impoundments. we think for existing it ought to have the lining and protection as well. mr. shimkus: thank you. i want to make sure i have time to close. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from california has one minute remaining. the gentleman from illinois has four minutes remaining. mr. waxman: i just want to point out that we -- neither of us want the stigma because of the coal ash being called hazardous because in many ways and plays it is can be reused. it would be very important to do that. but we want to make sure that all of the sites have the adequate protections. i wanted to read a quote from e.p.a. because people said e.p.a. wants to call this hazardous. and label it as hazardous. they said, quote, many of these metals are contained in coal ash at relatively high concentrations. such that if coal ash were improperly managed it could

leech out and pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment. the risk assessment that was conducted confirms this finding as do the many damage cases that had been documented. i seek to put into the record a statement of administrative policy, the administration opposes this bill and because it's insufficient to address the risks associated with coal ash disposal and management, and it undermines the federal government's ability to ensure that requirements in management and disposal of coal combustion residuals are protected of human health and the environment. i you urge a no vote on the bill. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: i yield myself the remainder of the time. because this is a good discussion and a good debate. the state border issue in our opening statements and comments

what we highlighted was the fact that current federal law applies to hazard material. e.p.a. air quality standards still apply. so we are not -- we don't have the right -- those laws still are in fact on the cross state. if they are having an impact, e.p.a. has the authority under rick a imminent and substantial danger to take action to enforce remedy and cleanup. our debate has always been that's covered, let's try to address the impoundment issue, the leeching issue, some standards, the municipal solid waste laws are very, very successful. and i would argue if you want to talk about toxicity, there's probably more, very more chemicals in a municipal solid waste lan fill than the -- landfill than the seven to 12

that you mentioned in the coal combustion residual. out of the 80 tests, standards way lower than the toxic standard under this test. so we -- this is the focus on jobs. this is a focus on recycling. that sector is being ravaged just by the threat. this is an important bill. i'm glad my colleague from west virginia has brought this to this chamber. it's been a great debate. i look forward to the amendment discussion. madam chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. no amendment to the committee amendment is in order except those printed in house report 112-244. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a

member designated in the report. shall be considered as read. shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent. shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-244. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? mr. shimkus: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1, printed in house report number 112-244, offered by mr. shimkus of illinois. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 431, the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: madam chairman, for subject of a colloquy i would like to yield time to the gentleman from west virginia.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mckinley: thank you for yielding. before i agree to the support the gentleman's amendment, i would like some clarification on one of the provisions it contains. it a mend the definition of revised criteria in the bill. to read the criteria promulgated for municipal solid waste landfill units as revised under section 40-10-c, in accordance with the requirement of subsection that the criteria protect human health and environment. does the gentleman's amendment open the door even a sliver to e.p.a. promulgating coal ash regulations not otherwise authorized in this bill under the guise of protecting human health and environment? or for the e.p.a. to use language as an arbitrary yardstick by which to judge the state's programs? mr. shimkus: to my friend from

west virginia, my response is that it does not. my amendment keeps that door to e.p.a. 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 401-o-c of rcra was enacted years ago to protect human health and the environment. my amendment merely clarifies your bill does not change that. mr. mckinley: mr. chairman the 40-10-c of rcra also gives authority to take into contract the practical capabilities of such facilities. does the gentleman's amendment alter that authority in any way? mr. shimkus: again to my colleague and friend, this amendment and 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. mr. mckinley-uly: thank you, with -- mr. mckinly-ily: thank you. with those clarifications i support the bill. the chair: the gentleman from illinois reserves the balance of his time. does any member claim time in opposition? the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i rise to claim time in opposition. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. waxman: i yield myself such time as i may consume. to be fair this amendment does make a few positive changes to the regulation. it adds clarification to recordkeeping, groundwater and other controls but it makes a lot of promises and doesn't deliver. some of my colleagues may believe they've reached a major concession because this amendment adds a groundwater

monitoring provision. and i'd agree. adequate detection and assessment monitoring is critically important to ensuring that when coal ash is disposed of, we have the opportunity to protect groundwater from toxic contamination. but members should be aware that this amendment moves all the groundwater provisions from paragraph c-1 to paragraph c-2. the effect of this change is to allow any state to waive the groundwater monitoring requirements at their discretion. fugitive dust has been talked about. this dust can pose a health risk because it is particulate matter that can lodge deep in the lungs and also because it can contain the toxic constituents of coal ash. the republicans refuse to include a provision to address this issue in committee. so some of my colleagues may be pleased that this amendment

includes a provision that mentions fugitive dust from coal ash disposal. but this provision is almost a tautology. the provision merely states that the states have the authority to require dust control measures if the state determines it to be appropriate. the amendment does not require state permit programs to include dust controls. it does not provide authority for e.p.a. to require dust controls when it is implementing, when it is the implementing agency. if a state determines that nothing is appropriate, then nothing is required within that state. like the underlying legislation, this amendment is long on appearances but short on substance. most importantly, this amendment fails to make improvements where improvements are not necessary. -- where improvements are most necessary. first the amendment fails to

establish a legal standard that the coal ash permit program has to meet. second, the manager's amendment fails to ensure the structural integrity of wet impoundment. it makes clear that wet impoundments can be used to hold storm water, by exempting them from run-on control requirements but it falls short of requiring that they be designed to safely hold that storm water. e.p.a. has concluded that this legislation excludes several key design requirements that relate to long-term structural stability of surface impoundment. third, the manager's amendment fails to ensure appropriate criteria for the disposal of coal ash rather than addressing the concerns raised by e.p.a. about the agency's ability to revise and tailor disposal criteria to address the risks posed by coal combustion residuals, the amendment

further limits e.p.a.'s potential role in helping the states by preventing e.p.a. from offering technical assistance to states without a request from the head of the lead -- the state agency. lastly, the amendment does nothing to authorize meaningful review of state programs. e.p.a. has raised extensive concerns about the ability to review state programs under this legislation to ensure protection of human health and the environment and this amendment does not address those concerns. the administration has announced its opposition to the legislation, stating that this bill is, quote, insufficient to address the risk associated with coal ash disposal and management and undermines the federal government's ability to ensure that requirements for management and disposal of coal combustion residuals are protective of human health and the environment, end quote. nothing in this amendment fixes

those concerns. madam chair, i'm willing to accept this amendment. it doesn't address the problems with this bill. but it doesn't make the bill preeshpli worse so i wouldn't oppose the amendment but i don't want people to think that this amendment lives up to the billing that it really make this is bill good enough and so i will not oppose it and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. shimkus: thank you, madam chairmanism appreciate the ranking member accepting the amendment. we do think it improves the bill. i yield one minute to the gentleman from texas. mr. green: thank you, madam speaker. this amendment does make the bill better, but if you're looking for perfect, this is the wrong place. legislation is not where you get perfect. we come together an compromise this makes the bill better than

it was when it came out of committee, and i voted for it out of committee so i'm glad he made it better with this amendment. we'll never get per fegs whether it be the house and i can guarantee you almost not in the senate. but this bill is better by this amendment, that's why i encourage its dopping. i thank my colleague. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new mexico to speak in support of the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, madam chair, i rise in support of h.r. 2273, basically, we hear a lot about the president asking where are the republican plans for jobs, i could refer the president to the western caucus jobs frontier report we put out the same day as his speech on the foor that's got 40 pieces of legislation that would create job bus half the time that we are in this body, talking about jobs, we have to play defense. mr. pearce: we have to keep the

president from killing jobs. that's basically what this bill does. the e.p.a. is going to implement regulations which, for instance, will have an effect in the four corners plant in new mexico, it's going to be forced to comply with regulations not to notice pli improve the quality of our air, but simply new regulations, and the coal ash from that plant is shipped around the country, it's shipped to cement factories in new mexico and california. as we shut off the ability to use this coal ash, then we're going to raise costs, we're going to create job-killing regulations that in fact are taking place across the country right now. if we look and break down the intent, really, there are several regulations that intend to kill coal mining in total and so why don't we talk about the real intent of different regulations. we're shutting down electric

generation right now. last year we saw rolling blackout, we saw power outages in new mexico and yet one of our plants that generates electricity is having to shut down 60% of its capacity. these are the things that are killing jobs, the president is doing this bill, the underlying bill, h r. 2273, simply pushes back on those regulations. i yield pack. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from illinois has 15 seconds remaining. mr. shimkus: i thank the ranking member for accepting this and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment two printed in house report 112-244.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. waxman: i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number two roughered a-- offered by mr. waxman of california. the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: thank you, madam chair. the resource conservation and recovery act or rcra was passed to protect the health of the environment from unsafe disposal of solid waste. it created duties reserved to the e.p.a. and policemans that could be delegated to the states. like other environmental statutes, rcra sets a legal standard of protectedness for state delegated programs. these standards are the yardstick by which it is determined whether a state's effort measures up and they ensure a consistent level of effort and protection

throughout the nation. this approach has worked well because it prevents a race to the bottom among the states in which a state willing to have the laxest protections becomes the dumping depround for the nation. congress has taken this approach for 40 years. we create a federal floor of protection and allow states to go further as necessary. h r. 2273 turns this approach on its head by saying that each state must have a program but that program can offer as little protection as the state chooses. that's essentially the status quo. the authors of the bill are attempting to model coal ash disposal on disposal of municipal solid waste, that's what they claim. but in the case of municipal solid waste, the standard is it must protect human health and the environment from risks

associated with municipal solid waste. but under this bill, this standard does not apply to coal combustion residuals. if we want to hold state coal ash to that standard, the same standard to which state solid waste permits are held, my amendment is the way to do it. without this amendment, nothing in the bill ensures that permit programs, whether administered by the states or the e.p.a., will protect human health and the environment. they will not even have that as a goal. under the existing language, a state could put in place an insufficient program, one that threatens human health, and so long as they file the required certification, they will meet their legal requirements. there would be no way for the public, for affected communities, or for e.p.a. to intervene to ensure the necessary safeguards. if we adopt this amendment, state lap plans will have to protect human health and the environment from the risks of

unsafe coal ash disposal. these are serious risks that this legislation should address, for example, groundwater has been contaminated from coal ash disposal in virginia, south carolina, michigan, new york, massachusetts, indiana, and north dakota and the list goes on. fugitive dust from coal ash disposal has impacted neighboring communities. for instance, toxic dust has blown through people's homes in maryland, harming thes prepri -- respiratory health of the public and risk from the catastrophic failure of wet impoundment is serious, as we saw in kingston, tennessee. when e.p.a. issued its proposed rules in june, 2010, they cited more than two dozen proven cases of damage from coal ash disposal. three of those are now on the -- sites are now on the national priority list for cleanup under superfund and the numb of these incidents may p

much higher. these ritchings are -- risks are real and significant. if this legislation is going to address them, it feeds to -- needs to include a legal standard of protectiveness. if my amendment is adopted, state programs will be required to protect human health and the environment. if a state refuses to do so, when e.p.a. steps in, the agency will have to implement a program to protect public health and the environment. it's a simple amendment but it is the difference between trying to protect health and the environment and trying to protect the status quo. i heard from my colleague and good friend from texas saying the bill was better and the legislative process is not always to get to the perfect but to get a better bill. well, it depends on what you consider good enough. this bill is not good enough. with this amendment it will definitely be improved but it's not good enough to vote for a bill because it's better than it was when it wasn't good enough then.

it's better to vote no and say no to a bill that's not good enough so you can get a better bill. and i think in the other body, we'll get a better bill if we are willing to vote against this bill, say no, until we get not the perfect bill, but a much better bill than what the proponents of this bill are saying is good enough because i don't accept that conclusion. i urge support for this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. waxman: then i don't reserve my time. the chair: who seeks time. the wrelt from illinois. mr. shimkus: i seek time in opposition. the chair: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. shimkus: i am opposed to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. shimkus: thank you, madam chairwoman. i appreciate the comments of my colleague from california. there's a recognition that we have been talking, we have been trying to work through, 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. and we -- i think the ranking member gave us an attaboy just by allowing the voice vote on the manager's amendment. 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 the states are going to get involved? if you use the maryland example, maryland has aggressively changed its own permitting processes based on those experiences. they've done it. again, states are closer to their people. i can imagine the calls the states reps when that occurred, and the basic bill says coal combustion residual which

doesn't raise the level of tocksicksity should be treated that -- toxicity should be treated that in liners and the like. that's really the debate that we have. the e.p.a.'s technical assistance which was placed on the ranking member committee's website said it could be placed based on the drafting of the bill. on page 10, line 8, if the administrator determines if the 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 e.p.a. can then be involved. so we think the issue that my colleague from california has raised has been addressed, and we look forward to debate of the further amendments, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. it's now -- the question is on

the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. waxman: madam chair. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i request a roll call vote on this. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. >> madam speaker.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. markey: madam speaker, i rise as the designee to offer amendment number 8, the carney amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment, amendment number three. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-244 offered by mr. markey of massachusetts. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 431, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i thank you. just three days before christmas in 2008 the coal ash impoundments, an impoundment is just another word for giant

swimming pool, burst in kingston, tennessee, releasing 1.1 billion gallons of toxic sludge that blanketed the nearby emory river. that toxic stew that flowed out in a billion gallons into the river destroyed homes and 300 acres of surrounding land creating a superfund site that could create up to $1.2 billion to remediate. since this incident, the e.p.a. has identified 49 other giant pools of coal ash across the country that are designated as high hazards. this means that if these

impoundments were to fail, then it's not just the land that would be dabblingd but human life would like -- damage but human life would likely be lost. this republican bill purports to be a slougs to what happened in tennessee -- solution to what happened in tennessee. it claims to create standards for these giant pools that would ensure a t.v.a. catastrophe won't happen again. but in fact it excludes several key safety requirements such as just accounting for earthquakes or surface erosion and even worse the very minimal requirements that are included in this bill only apply to new impoundments that are built starting three years after this bill is enacted. that's right. nothing even starts for three years and it's got to be brand new. so more than 430 impoundments that we know of and are in use

today are not even going to be covered by this bill, and they have been built by old standards, not by the new standards. that's like finding a fatal flaw in a car that's on the road but only requiring car companies to fix the ones that have not yet been built and won't even come on the road for three years, or like finding e. coli in chicken, on grocery store shelves but rather than issuing a recall today for the stuff that's on the shelves, they say there's rules that are going to be in place three years from now that allows the contaminated poultry continue to be sold. this amendment is a simple fix to the problem. it will require all impoundments to be minimal safety criteria in this republican bill. those facilities that cannot meet basic requirements such as installing liners so that this

toxic coal sludge doesn't seep into the soil and the groundwater will have 10 years to close their doors. unless this amendment is passed, disposal of coal ash is unlined, unsafe pits will be allowed to continue. in missouri there is an unlined impoundment that has been leaking more than 50,000 gallons of toxic liquid a day since 1992. it would not have to be fixed. let me repeat that. 50,000 gallons of toxic liquid a day since 1992 that's been leaking out of that facility, and it wouldn't have to be fixed under this bill. what are you saying to the people in missouri? in princeton, illinois, a wet coal ash impoundment built in an earthquake fault area discharged dangerous sludge when an earthquake struck nearby last year. the spill contaminated a

national wildlife refuge with selennium, a wetteland with endangered birds had to be drained. now that would allow that impoundment continue to receiving coal ash as well. and after the kingston accident in 2008, the tennessee valley authority approved a plan to voluntarily phase out all of their coal ash pond in 10 years and to eliminate high-risk storage facilities that pose a danger to people and property if they were to fail. if they can do it, shouldn't the other companies be able to do it as well? we shouldn't have to wait for another catastrophe like kingston to happen before we require these basic safety measures to be employed at all coal ash ponds. i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time

has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- >> to speak in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. shimkus: thank you. my friend from massachusetts has great rhetorical skills and finally made it to the big time where i can manage bills 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 that, and i quoted before, will require effort to implement in virginia such as regulatory amendments for conformance, notifying and seeking e.p.a. program approval . so here is a 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 this 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, e.p.a. 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 they have found none, zero, zip of these impoundments to be unsafe. now, that's our own e.p.a. and we're glad they're out there now checking these impoundment areas because -- and i think a lot of this is the result of moving this bill and having now at least a standard for liners. i think in our testimony of the subcommittee, liners are important. liners are what we do in municipal solid waste. liners is what we should do with coal combustion residuals. well, this bill ensures we have

liners in the coal combustion residual ponds and facilities. so it's a very -- i think it's time to protect times. it helps for obviously the recycling of this in the industry sector, it helps save jobs. i think the amendment only hurts the passage of this bill. i ask colleagues to vote no on the markey amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. markey: madam chair, on that i request the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california massachusetts -- the gentleman from massachusetts will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in

the house report 112-244. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. markey: madam chair, i have amendment number 4 at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-244 offered by mr. markey of massachusetts. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 431, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: thank you, madam chair. two weeks ago scientists at a massive facility in europe announced that they may have discovered a particle that travels faster than the light -- the speed of light. a discovery that would turn einstein's theory of special rell tifflet upside down, a discovery that if true would revolutionize the way we see the world. the news spurred a massive

amount of interest. headlines read, "back to the future," and media stories even speculated on how this discovery could be exploited to enable real-lifetime travel. however, it seems republicans have already figured out how to get around einstein's theory because today the house will vote on a piece of legislation that will blast us right back in time to the start of the industrial revolution. this bill says no matter what e.p.a. learns about the sludge that comes out of coal-fired plants, no matter how high the concentrations of poisonous arsenic, chromium and no matter what e.p.a. learns about how these materials find their way into our drinking water, e.p.a. is forbidden to classify or regulate it as hazardous waste. e.p.a. is forbidden to require

that this toxic material be disposed of carefully. this bill turns a blind eye to evidence of known hazards and takes us back to the dark ages to a time before science was valid and before advanced knowledge transformed society. it takes us back to an era when mercury and arsenic, major components of coal ash were used to cure toothaches and clear up your complex. it takes us back to an -- your complexion. it takes us into an era where children was ripped into the bowels of the earth to get coal and to die early deaths. the problem continuing to push us 19th century technology like coal is that you then continue 19th century attitudes about public health and the environment. instead of time travel through einstein's theory of special

relativity, republicans are pushing to travel backwards in time to advance the coal industry's special interests. while republicans travel efforts -- while republican efforts on time travel are unlikely to help us understand black holes, they will take us back to the era of black lung disease. instead of allowing the coal industry and republicans to transport our country's environmental and public health standards back to the era of charles dickens, we should hold these industries to greater expectations. . in december of 2008, hundreds of acres of lands was buried in a toxic they released hundreds of felons of coal ash slurry covering it in a muck, damaging homes and property.

the event was literally a poisonous lurp of coal dumped on the nearby community just three days before christmas. this republican bill purports to be a solution to what happened in tennessee. it claims to create standard for coal ash containment ponds that would ensure structural integrity but in fact it explicitly exempts those same coal ash ponds from key design requirements relating to their long-term stability. this bill claims that states have to set up a rigorous drinking water monitor regular jet stream and dust controls, but in fact, the bill has no legal or enforceable standard for the state programs and even more, any state at any time can waive any of these minimal permitting requirements and don't have to tell anyone. that's right, when it comes to constructing a gigantic containment pond in your backyard a state can choose to

opt out of the requirement of this bill and no one, not the public or the e.p.a. would ever even know that is just plain wrong. we should not delegate this authority to the states and then turn around and let states hide behind a cloak of secrecy when making decisions about waste sites that maybe hundreds of acres in size, receive millions of tons of waste and which may be in operation for decades. my amendment is very simple. it says that before a state can waive even the minimal cry keer in a -- criteria that this bill requires, the state must first notify the public and the offer the opportunity for public comment. that is the least that we have the responsibility to the public. i urge and aye vote on the markey amendment. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? mr. shimkus: to speak against the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. shimkus: thank you, madam chair. the gentleman's well-meaning amendment requires public notice and comment before the state submits its certification paperwork to the administrator of the e.p.a. there's confusion as to what this bill does. for the first time, states have to conform to the e.p.a. standards. i read this before in the other part of the debate on page 10, if the administrator determines, this is the administrator of the e.p.a. 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. there's really no purpose for the -- for my colleague's amendment. the e.p.a. has the ability to say, good state program, bad state program.

the governor of virginia says, we're going to have to do more than we do now because of this bill. the -- under section 7004 b of rcra requires public participation. part of the debate is, why do we have to continue to put more laws on the book 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. 2274, the gentleman's amendment is unnecessary, it's duplicative and i ask my colleagues to reject it. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields

back. all time having expired, it is now -- the question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the then -- in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. mr. markey: i request the yeas and nays, madam chair. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number five printed in house report 112-244. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number five printed in house report 112-244, offered by mr. rush of illinois. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 241, the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois.

mr. rush: madam speaker, my amendment simply provides federal enforcement authority so that if the e.p.a. administrate determines that it is in violation of a state coal combustion residuals permit program and the state is not taking appropriate action to enforce such permit program with respect to such structure, the administrator may inspect such structure and enforce the requirement of such permit programs. madam speaker, as currently drafted, h.r. 273 fails to require states to enforce their own permit requirements. the manager's amendment only

requires states to describe -- to describe their process to enforce but there's no requirement, not a syllable to actually enforce regulations. this loophole in h.r. 2273 does not require adequate state inspection of coal ash ponds, land fills, and allows states to set up voluntary or regulatory programs which will clearly not ensure the safe design, the safe operation, and the cleanup of the nation's many toxic coal ash disposal sites. madam speaker, due to a well

noted case in my district of princewood, illinois, where contaminated drinking water was piped into the homes of my constituents for over 20 years, between 1986 and 2007, without any intervention from either the state or federal e.p.a. agencies, i for one am very sensitive to this issue. since the beginning of this current congress, the republican majority has been on a never ending, nonstop, forever and ever crusade against the e.p.a. and our nation's environmental protection laws on behalf of a few industries and to the detriment of the public good.

however, for many of my constituents, there is no greater role for congress to play than to protect their lives, their livelihoods, the livelihoods of their children, the lives of their children, by ensuring that all american citizens have access to clean air and clean water. madam speaker, i believe that it is a false choice to try to frame these tremendously important policy decisions under the paradigm of either clean air and water, or jobs and employment. as leaders, it is our job, it is our responsibility, to find the right balance in legislation so our constituents are not faced with these types of lose-lose situations and

decisions. i believe that my amendment will go a long way in trying to make this legislation far more balanced so that at the very least it will allow the federal government, our government, to serve as the last protection for the american people against companies that would skirt the law to harm our families and the communs that they live in and the communities these companies would do harm too. many of my constituents, they don't have the money they don't have the influence that industry have, so they're counting on us. this congress. their congressional representatives. to protect their interests, to provide -- to fight for them, just as those who are fighting

for the interests of a few corporations in this body are doing. madam speaker, i want to end with a quote from a letter dated july 11 that my office received from a number of ordinary american families who live by coal ash dumps all across this country. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the letter will be -- mr. rush: i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. shimkus: i rise in on -- >> as one of just two engineers in congress that are licensed or capable of designing these structures, i want to make certain that in the bill, there

is the language that you're concerned about. mr. mckinley: that we do have the ability, under page 6 if you've not read this, the bill yet, it talks about how that's to be designed, constructed and maintained under this language. we have to make sure that this bill if we pass it, is going to be maintained and the state's going to look at, if there's a violation of that, then the e.p.a. can step in. please understand that with this, we've got numbers of protections written into this bill. the e.p.a. enforcement inspection authority is already there under page 18. if you've read the rest of the bill it talks about imminent hazard, they can step in at any time under imminent hazard and take control of this if they have a problem with it. there's also the provision about for law enforcement, but more importantly, the e.p.a.

determines that a particular state coal combustion residual program is deficient, if it's deficient, because of lack of proper implementation. there are options available in the bill for the e.p.a. to step in, administer anden force -- and ens for the program in that state. my colleague, this amendment, though well intended, is unnecessary. it's not about giving the e.p.a. authority it does not have and will not have. it's another vote of no confidence in the state while at the same time encouraging the e.p.a. to meddle in state matters. mr. rush: would the gentleman yield? mr. mckinley: yes. mr. rush: i thank the gentleman. under this bill, if the state fails to do an adequate job of enforcing its program, there's only one remedy, e.p.a. has to take over the entire program. and we all know that having

e.p.a. take over state's program is unlikely and highly undesirable. my amendment creates an additional remedy for inadequate state enforcement that is more lenient than taking over a state's program. it allows the e.p.a. to enforce state requirements if there's a violation and the state isn't doing anything about it. without this amendment, a state could fail to implement their program for coal ash disposal in a way that puts human health and the environment at risk and there will be no discrete way for the e.p.a. to intervene to provide the necessary safeguard. mr. mckinley: reclaiming my time, if i could. with all due respect, i think there's three components you're overlooking in your amendment. one is that these dams are

designed by professional engineers that are stamping and maintaining by contractors, they have to see those dams are maintained, so there's not a threat. second, you have the issue of imminent hazard under page 18, please read the bill and you'll see that they can step in at any time if they feel there's a threat, they can step in and take care of that. there's other provisions that allow people to file class actions or individual actions against this if they feel it's being violated system of we've got three protections already built into this bill to take care of the issue that i agree you can be concerned about but it's one thing we made sure in this bill when it was drafted. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.

mr. rush: on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by illinois will be postponed. -- offered by the gentleman from illinois will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-244. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-244 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 431, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: i thank the chairwoman, and i thank the committee for its courtesies and the rules committee for their courtesies. it would seem unusual to have a poster that says "make it in

america" on this discussion, but i think i'll lay the groundwork that we have no angst against the assets and natural resources that are in this particular country generating opportunity for work. but what my friends in putting forward this legislation on the other side of the aisle are asking us to do is to take a, if you will, word action and simply quash the e.p.a., take a sledgehammer and sledgehammer the e.p.a. and what we're saying is there is a place for state regulation and there is a place for the involvement of a federal response. let me give you the most potent example. in 2008 failure of a coal ash impoundment in kingston, tennessee, spilled more than five million cubic yards of

coal ash and require approximately $1.2 billion for cleanup. it is a stark reminder that we must have mutual involvement of the state and the federal government. now, many of you may have seen the news clips on that story. i remember seeing a couple come out and look in utter amazement at the loss of their beautiful property and their home, wondering how they were going to recoup. we call that a natural disaster. but the point in this legislation, even as i believe that we have the opportunity to grow economies with knowing how to do the things in the right way is that there is a failure to recognize the importance of the health and the safety of the american people. my amendment is simply requiring the e.p.a. to study the impact of these permits on our environment and health. this is a reasonable request considering our use of coal generates 130 million tons of

waste a year. the bad part about it is that the federal government, the president of the united states who has introduced a jobs bill which cannot get an iota of attention here is indicating that this bill will be vetoed because in fact what it wants to do is to leave everything to the state without cooperation. what i'm suggesting is, let's cooperate, and so my amendment says that the e.p.a. will have a broad report containing the results of a study to determine a long-term impact of state coal combustion residuals, permit programs and reports on human health. the e.p.a. must have a role in the protection of the quality of life of all americans. so, for example, they have a responsibility as the states do to take care of tennesseans or illinoisans or texans who

happen to be in texas. but, remember, folks, we live in america. most of us don't want to succeed from the union, if you will, or the nation, and we want the protection of the federal government. that $1.2 billion involves the federal government in helping to clean up which was a disaster. my only point is we are champions of make it in america. we are champions. and on this poster you will see a number of individuals, a hardhat, a teacher and someone who is dealing with the health and safety of america. we are champions of this. that's why many of us want to vote on the american jobs act to create jobs for our teachers, our firefighters, our law enforcement, but i would share with you that these are also americans whose quality of life we have to protect. and while we're making it in america, while we're manufacturing, while we have the assets that this bill attempts to address, can we also respect the quality of life of our children and our seniors and those who suffer

from respiratory ailments and individuals that are pregnant and newborns and toddlers who may be impacted by this particular issue? kingston, tennessee, is a superfund location, as we speak, because of that terrible disaster. so i'd ask my colleague to support a simple amendment of cooperation. that cooperation is for the e.p.a. study to assess the impact on not only those in a state but on americans. i believe we are all in this together. we live in a great country. we're all patriots. i would conclude my remarks by saying, for those on the frontlines fighting for us, they would like us to recognize that it is important to keep america great. america's great. as we build, keep the quality of life, allows our citizens to thrive and prosper, protect our seniors, protect our children, protect those families and protect businesses as they continue to try to do what is right for the american people.

the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: with that i ask my colleagues to support the amendment. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? mr. shimkus: to take a position against the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. shimkus: thank you, madam chairman. let me thank my colleague for offering an amendment to the bill. a couple things that have been discussed during the debate. obviously she mentioned kingston, tennessee. she has to remember that was t.v.a., that was a government disaster. that was a man-made disaster by a government, in essence, an agency. i used numerous times that what this bill does is sets a standard that the states have to comply with to get certified by the e.p.a. and of course in that process locally there is under federal law currently there's opportunity for comment. what in addition e.p.a. within the last week announced at soon

it will be seeking comments under the notice of data availability or as referred to as noda. that's why this amendment is duplicative. as well as the state's comments for proposal for coal ash. this noda was not required by law and certainly was not the result of a statute. it's something that the agency's doing. while studies find innocuous, it does have a cost to taxpayer. and so in that aspect -- my colleague following this a little bit. the debate is coal ash or fly ash which is in impounded areas that were 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 e.p.a. continues to say they're toxic which does not meet the standard of toxicity based upon analysis. i mean, i love this toxic sludge. you pick up dirt and there's toxic elements in the dirt. the question is, to what standard does it rise to? and if it doesn't rise to the level of toxicity, then it's not considered. and that's what this debate's 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 and 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 and once it moves over with that -- again, i ask my

colleagues -- ms. jackson lee: will the gentleman yield? mr. shimkus: i ask my colleagues to object the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentlelady. ms. jackson lee: i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 112-244 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order -- amendment number 2 by mr. waxman of california, amendment number 3 by mr. markey of massachusetts, amendment number 4 by mr. markey of massachusetts,

amendment number 5 by mr. rush of illinois, amendment number 6 by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-244 by the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-244 offered by mr. waxman of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device.

this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 171 and the nays are 236. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-244 by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, on which further

proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-244 offered by mr. markey of massachusetts. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 173 and the nays are 231. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-244 by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-244 offered by mr. markey of massachusetts. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned

coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the nays are 223. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 5 printed in house report 1112-244 by the

gentleman from illinois, mr. rush, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignated the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5, printed in house report number 112-244, offered by mr. rush of illinois. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the requested for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is offered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 164. the nays are 241. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-244 by the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6, printed in house report number 112-244, offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote --

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 174. the nays are 235. the amendment is not adopted. the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. those in favor please say aye. those opposed please stay no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly under the rule the committee rises. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 2273

and pursuant to house resolution 431 i report the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole on the state of the union reports the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 2273 and pursuant to house resolution 431 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on the amendment -- to the amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the question is on adoption of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend subtitle d of the solid waste disposal act to facilitate recovery and beneficial use and provide for the proper management and disposal of

materials generated by the combustion of goal and other fossil fuels. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island rise? mr. cicilline: i have a motion to recommit at the desk, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. cicilline: yes, i am. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is qualified. the house will be in order. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. cicilline of rhode island moves to recommit the bill h.r. 2273 to the committee on energy and commerce with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. at the end of the bill add the following section.

the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to dispensing of the reading? without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. cicilline: thank you, mr. speaker. this is the final amendment to this bill. it will obviously not result in any delay once this amendment is acted upon we will immediately consider the bill. mr. speaker, the people of the first congressional district in rhode island much like the men and women -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the gentleman may proceed. mr. cicilline: much like the men and women from districts and states across this country sent me to this congress to focus on our most important priority as a nation. that priority is getting people back to work and putting our economy back on track. and yet here we are again spending the time and energy of this congress not focusing on creating jobs or reviving our economy but instead we are spending the time and energy in this body with another piece of legislation that threatens our environment and fails to protect the health of our communities. if we are going to be forced by

the republican leadership to spend time in congress considering legislation with the potential to devastate our environment and damage public health, then at the very least we should allow some semblance of common sense to prevail. at the very least those of us in this congress with a sense of responsibility for protecting the health and safety of our communities must impress upon others inherent dangers in the legislation -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may proceed. mr. cicilline: the inherent dangers in the legislation before us today. a bill that fails to set sufficient baseline standards for coal ash storage and disposal, which is why i'm offering a simple, straightforward amendment that could avert future tragedies both human and environmental. while the underlying premise of this bill threatens the public safety and health of communities, and while the provisions in this legislation set insufficient standards to ensure the adequate protection of our environment and public

health, i like many of my colleagues am a pragmatist. i fullyunder stand despite my opposition to this bill, h.r. 2273, is going to pass the house today. but as a former mayor i take the public safety of my community and monitoring and preparing for and managing disasters very seriously. the key to this work, the element that saves lives and property is early warning. local communities cannot observe all of this -- absorb all of this responsibility themselves. operators and owners must do their part. while oppose this bill, it's indefensible to let this legislation proceed without including secretary of defense message -- commonsense emergency preparedness provisions which is what this amendment will do. the 2008 coal ash empowerment failure in kingston, tennessee, spilt more than five million cubic yards of coal ash. you can see it depicted in these photographs. over one billion pounds of coal ash sludge swamped houses,

filled rivers, and covered 300 acres of land. 300 acres of land covered in coal ash. a substance found to contain significant quantities of arsenic and other toxins. nearly 40 years ago a leak in west virginia bursted unleashing a wave of sludge 15 feet high traveling at seven feet per second. the wave struck the community without warning. within just a few hours 125 people were dead, including 30 infants and young children, more than 1,000 injured, and 4,000 people were left homeless. mining officials have been monitoring the rising water levels for four days before it burst, yet never informed the men, women, and children in harm's way. this amendment will help ensure these human tragedies and catastrophic environmental disasters never happen again. this amendment requires owners

and operators of surface empowerments to quip their facilities with systems to monitor for potentially hazardous conditions that could lead to a failure. further should a potentially condition develop, this straightforward commonsense amendment will require owners and operators to take action to e -- to eliminate the hazardous conditions, to notify first responders, and take appropriate steps to notify and/or evacuate residents, personnel, and others who may be in harm's way. in the united states right now there are 49 toxic waste ponds at risk of catastrophic failure. just like the one that devastated kingston, tennessee. each year the united states generates 130 million tons of coal ash. we need to be prepared. as the former mayor of providence which was the first municipality in the nation to receive accreditation from the emergency management accreditation program, i understand the importance of preparedness and the

responsibility that comes with it. monitoring and early warning of potentially hazardous conditions saves lives. we need to make certain that if this legislation passes, it includes these commonsense safeguards that will avert another tragedy and devastation. it's the responsibility of this body to protect the health and safety of the communities we serve and those affected by the legislation we pass. i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment and do all that we can to avoid this kind of disaster again. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman yields back. . for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> i raise in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. upton: i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. there are two camps in this body. there are members who want to stop using coal for energy production as soon as possible and switch to other alternative

energy forms and then there's the group that recognizes that coal supplies half, half of our nation's electricity and that whether we like it or not will continue to do so for a fairly long time so we need to manage as best we can the residuals left over after that coal is burned. it's amazing what clever uses that we have found for coal ash that our power plants produce. yes, it's used to strengthen concrete. in fact, the road builders report that road and bridge building costs will increase by $100 billion over the next 20 years if we stop using coal ash in concrete. in fact, the standard -- believe it or not, for the california authority, highway authority is concrete strengthened with coal ash. the best wall board, roofing shingles, even bowling balls contain coal ash. but not all coal ash is beneficially used. that's why we need to make sure that what is disposed of a will

stay managed responsibly. today, states have a variety of standards for managing disposal of coal ash. the gentlelady from wisconsin, ms. baldwin, on our committee said her state finds uses for all of its coal ash. other states have to deal with disposing of half or more of their coal ash. mr. mckinley, the sponsor of this legislation, when he first joined our committee he explained to us how the administration's proposals to regulate coal combustial residuals were threatening the recycling industry. he asked us to support the bill to simply set those proposals aside. we heard from a variety of witnesses from environmental groups and power plant operators but among the most important witnesses was a lady who spoke for the officials in every one of our 50 states who run the state solid waste management programs. she had a better idea. explaining that states govern

solid waste under stringent federal guidelines, she asked, why not do the same with coal ash? we state, she said, all run our solid waste programs just fine and are careful to meet the federal standards for two reasons. first, we want to protect human health and the environment and, second, we don't want the e.p.a. running our programs for us. so we rolled up our sleeves and drafted such a program, bipartisan by the way. we -- regular order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. mr. upton: we started with a federal municipal solid waste rules themselves and we saw that most of those would apply very well to coal ash. even the e.p.a. said few niss pat solid waste laws is a good model of safe management of coal ash. after all, these protect us from everyday household trash which includes batteries, paint, electronic parts and who knows what but then we saw

different uses for coal ash so we added some provisions to take those differences into account and make this bill even more protected. the result was the bill before us today that is endorsed by one of the broadest most interesting coalitions that we have seen. the environmental council of the states, the 50 heads of the state environmental departments from maine to california, strongly endorsed the bill. so did the recyclers. but every member i bet has heard from at least one of them. so did the power plant operators, the coal producers, the manufacturers, the cement industry, the private sector unions and, yes, certainly, the folks who pay their electricity bills. so who's left out? well, the opponents really have just one thing in common. they regret that coal is a big energy source and they think the sooner we can get off it the better. they understand that to get there you have to stop the recycling first and then start

regulating it even though it's hazardous, even as though it's hazardous. it's not. even carol browner said it's not. she said that in 1993 and she said that again in 2000. this bill is a new approach. it's congress setting the standards and the states making sure that they are met as the states know best how to do. i ask you to vote no on the motion to recommit and vote yes on final. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. mr. cicilline: i ask for the yeas and nays, mr. speaker, a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes

by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage. this will be a pifment vote. -- will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]