[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 94 (Wednesday, June 20, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H3868-H3875]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1520
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 4348, SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
EXTENSION ACT OF 2012, PART II
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. McKinley moves that the managers on the part of the House at the
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two houses on the Senate
amendment to the bill H.R. 4348 be instructed to insist on the
provisions contained in title V of the House bill (relating to coal
combustion residuals).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes.
Concrete is a fundamental element of roads, bridges, and
infrastructure projects, and an important element of concrete is coal
ash. This is now the fourth time the House has affirmed and reaffirmed
its support for the beneficial use of recycling coal ash.
Currently, the conference committee on H.R. 4348 is deep in
productive negotiations, and strong bipartisan compromises have
occurred relative to the coal ash provision. My intent today is to urge
the conferees to continue these bipartisan negotiations and retain this
important, cost-saving provision in the final bill.
We're not here to rehash the same ideologically motivated arguments
that we have heard from the extremists. Simply put, we are here to help
put people back to work, to give American businesses certainty, and to
protect the health and environment of our families and friends.
For those who say coal ash is irrelevant to roads and bridges, they
couldn't be further from the truth. Concrete suppliers have been
incorporating coal ash into concrete mixtures since the construction of
the Hoover Dam over 80 years ago. Without coal ash, the cost of
construction projects would increase by $100 billion, according to the
American Road and Transportation Builders Association, thereby reducing
the amount of moneys available for roads and bridges and infrastructure
in America.
Keep in mind, less construction results in fewer jobs. By retaining
this bipartisan section of the highway bill, Congress will be also
protecting the 316,000 jobs that are at stake in the recycling of fly
ash--jobs involving concrete block, brick, drywall, ceramic tile,
bowling balls, and even in the cosmetics industry. For those who have
been asking where the jobs bills are, this is a jobs bill.
Among the supporters of this language are the Chamber of Commerce,
the National Association of Manufacturers, the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the United Mine Workers, the United
Transportation Union, the American Road and Transportation Builders
Association, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, and the AFL
CIO's building and construction trades.
[[Page H3869]]
Consider these quotes, Mr. Speaker:
``Removing coal ash from the supply chain could increase the price of
concrete by an average of 10 percent,'' according to the National
Association of Homebuilders.
According to the National Association of Manufacturers:
``Coal ash contributes $6-$11 billion annually to the U.S. economy
through revenues from sales for beneficial use, avoided cost of
disposal, and savings from use as sustainable building materials.''
Mr. Speaker, currently 60 million tons of coal ash is recycled
annually. According to EPA's own data, coal ash replaces between 15 and
30 percent of the Portland cement used in concrete. The EPA has noted
that the use of coal ash in concrete has resulted in saving as much as
25 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually and as much as 54
million barrels of oil. The EPA has indicated the annual financial
benefits of using coal ash as a substitute for Portland cement
contributes nearly $5 billion in energy savings, $41 billion in water
savings, $240 million in emission reductions, and nearly $18 billion in
nongreenhouse gas-related air pollution. The EPA itself states that
coal ash leads to ``better road performance.''
Two studies, one in 1993 and another in 2000, both under the Clinton
administration's EPA, found that coal ash did not warrant the
regulations being pushed by the Obama administration. In 2005, the EPA,
the Federal Highway Administration, and the Department of Energy
collaborated with the private sector to craft guidance on the
appropriate uses and benefits of coal ash in highway construction.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Reauthorizing the surface transportation programs is important for
communities across the country. It will help revitalize our
transportation infrastructure and will create jobs. The Transportation
Conference Committee must work together to finalize a conference report
as soon as possible to get people back to work.
The Senate worked in a bipartisan manner to develop a strong bill
that will create jobs and help the economy. They focused on the core
issues, ignoring the temptation to attach side issues to this important
legislation. Unfortunately, the transportation bill is now being
jeopardized by extraneous and antienvironmental provisions being pushed
by Republicans in the House.
Instead of working to come to agreement on important transportation
policy provisions, House Republicans are holding the bill hostage for a
legislative earmark for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, provisions
that steamroll environmental review of projects, and the McKinley coal
ash bill that eliminates existing authority to protect human health and
the environment from the risks posed by unsafe disposal of coal ash.
This motion to instruct is the latest effort to push these positions.
It would instruct the transportation conferees to insist on the
McKinley coal ash bill in the transportation bill.
But the McKinley coal ash proposal is extraneous. If we do nothing on
the transportation bill to address coal ash disposal, then coal ash
will continue to be available for use in concrete for transportation
projects just as it is today. Current Federal regulations do not
restrict the use of coal ash in concrete. And counter to what you may
hear today, EPA has not proposed to regulate such beneficial reuses.
Although some may suggest that recycling of coal ash will decrease
because of stigma, experience has shown that when waste materials are
regulated, as EPA has proposed to do for coal ash, the rates of
recycling and reuse increase. This has happened with other regulated
wastes, and it has happened with coal ash in Wisconsin, which has a
robust regulatory scheme. There's a very simple reason for this:
Disposal in unsafe pits is inexpensive but environmentally dangerous.
When reasonable environmental safeguards are put in place, the cost of
disposal will increase. That makes alternatives like using coal ash in
concrete more attractive.
The coal ash legislation that this motion seeks to include will not
ensure the safe disposal of coal ash. It will not prevent coal ash
impoundments from catastrophically failing. It will not protect against
significant environmental and economic damage. And it will not prevent
contamination of public drinking water systems.
The McKinley coal ash bill will not stop another spill like we saw in
Kingston, air pollution like we have seen in Gambrills, Maryland, or
water pollution like we have seen nationwide.
{time} 1530
What this coal ash proposal will do is stop the transportation
conference from succeeding. This motion to instruct attempts to lock
the House conferees into a position that the Senate will only reject,
and it will doom the transportation conference committee to failure.
We can retreat to intractable positions on extraneous issues, making
a transportation bill difficult, if not impossible, to pass,
particularly in the time frame that we have set out for us; or, we can
work together in the time we have to produce a transportation bill that
will be signed by the President and will keep our economy on the mend.
A vote for this motion is a vote against completing the
transportation conference. I urge all Members to say ``yes'' to
transportation and vote ``no'' on this position motion.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, it is great to be down here.
This is why this provision of this bill is really pertinent to the
highway bill. Here it is: Flex concrete, fly ash, lighter, more
durable.
I have two documents I brought to the floor. The second one reads in
the acknowledgments:
This document was prepared by the U.S. EPA in cooperation
with the following agencies and associations: Department of
Energy, Federal Highway Administration, American Coal Ash
Association, and the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group.
What is interesting about these two books, one published in June
2003, the other one published in 2005, is they go through all of the
great uses of fly ash in construction, and I would like to read just a
few of those.
Here's one: ``Fly ash improves workability for pavement of
concrete.''
Remember, a DOT book, EPA approved, DOE approved.
The next one has: ``Fly ash concrete is used in severe exposure
applications such as the decks and piers of Tampa Bay's Sunshine Skyway
Bridge.''
Nice photo here, beautiful bridge. So this is not new. This is
reaffirming what the construction industry has been doing for decades.
And actually in this other pamphlet, I'll talk about even greater use.
Here's another one: ``Fly ash concrete finishing.''
Again, this is a Federal Highway Administration book, Department of
Energy book, sponsored by the U.S. EPA, all saying good things about
fly ash in road construction.
``Full-depth reclamation of a bituminous road.''
Another one: ``Flowable fill used in a utility trench application,''
all dealing with fly ash.
``Fly Ash in Structural Fills and Embankments''; a nice photo of them
using that in the construction sector.
Also, ``Soil Stabilization to Improve Soil Strength,'' all using fly
ash applications.
We have a highway bill, and that's why this provision is very, very
important; because if the EPA has its way and they label fly ash as
toxic, guess what, no more flex concrete, no more building of buildings
that have fly ash applications.
This is one of my favorite ones: ``Use of Ash in Construction Through
the Ages. In ancient times, the Romans added volcanic ash to concrete
to strengthen structures such as the Roman Pantheon and the Coliseum--
both of which still stand today.
``The first major use of coal fly ash in concrete in the United
States occurred in 1942 to repair a tunnel spillway at the Hoover Dam.
``One of the most impressive concrete structures in the country, the
Hungry Horse Dam near Glacier National Park in Montana, was constructed
from 1948
[[Page H3870]]
to 1952, with concrete containing''--you guessed it--``fly ash.''
We're in Washington, D.C.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McKINLEY. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. SHIMKUS. One of the great things we see here, ``In Washington,
D.C., both the metropolitan area subway system (Metro) and the new
Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center were built
with''--you guessed it--fly ash and concrete.
``Other significant structures utilizing coal fly ash in concrete
include the `Big Dig' in Boston and the decks and piers of Tampa Bay's
Sunshine Skyway Bridge.''
That's why this is applicable to the highway bill. I commend my
colleague.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 5 minutes to
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), the ranking member of the
Energy Subcommittee.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member on the
Energy and Commerce Committee and let him know how much I appreciate
not only his leadership on other issues, but particularly his
leadership on this issue here.
Mr. Speaker, I stand here astounded, amazed, and bemused at the
remarks of the past speaker. You know, he wants the American people to
be convinced that fly ash is as healthy to them as it can be and that
they should, in fact, maybe go out and go to their local drugstore and
ask for a bottle of fly ash so they can sprinkle it over their dinner
meal as they would maybe a salad dressing. I don't think that the
American people would be pleased with that.
Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong opposition to this motion to instruct.
At a time when we are facing historic levels of joblessness in
communities around the country, in the African American communities and
other minority communities, Republicans are playing chicken with the
transportation bill, which is intended to provide American jobs and
repair our aging infrastructure. It is not to further the contamination
of the water supplies, the air supplies in our most vulnerable
communities, so why don't we stop the charade. Why don't we stop the
asthmatic assault on the most vulnerable segments, the most vulnerable
communities in our Nation.
This motion to instruct contains a deadly and dangerous provision
that would only allow more poison, more disease, and more death from
one of our Nation's biggest waste products--the deadly, cancerous coal
ash that's under discussion today.
Coal ash, I want to remind you, is a waste leftover after thousands
of tons of coal are burned at coal-fired power plants, and it is laden
from top to bottom with toxins such as mercury, arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, and lead. These are pollutants that cause cancer, that cause
organ disease, breathing problems, neurological damage, developmental
problems, and even the final problem, which is death.
Mr. Speaker, title V of H.R. 4348 gives companies an unprecedented
ability to pollute under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
even though the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, found some
coal ash ponds pose a 1-in-50 risk of cancer related to residents
drinking arsenic-contaminated water, a risk that is 2,000 times the
EPA's regulatory goal.
Dangerous coal ash disposal affects thousands of U.S. communities,
but research informs us that income and race remain strong predictors
of the amount of pollution that Americans face. The majority of coal
ash is disposed in grossly inadequate dumpsites, which are primarily
located in low-income communities, disproportionately impacting those
who are least equipped to respond to water contamination and the
onslaught of toxic dust in the air.
{time} 1540
Mr. Speaker, low-income citizens are more likely to rely on
groundwater supplies and less likely to have access to medical
insurance and health care.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, title V of H.R. 4348 fails to protect
communities and their drinking water from toxic coal ash or from
another messy spill like the disaster that occurred in Kingston,
Tennessee, in 2008.
Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying that my State alone produces
4.4 million tons of coal ash annually, and at least 19 coal ash
dumpsites have contaminated local water supplies. Additionally, each
and every day a steam-fired steamship, the SS Badger, dumps 4 tons of
coal ash into Lake Michigan, my beloved city of Chicago's primary water
supply system.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote against the motion to instruct.
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden).
Mr. HOLDEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the gentleman from West
Virginia's motion to instruct conferees to resolve the coal ash
provision in the highway bill.
There are more co-generation plants in my congressional district than
any congressional district in the country. For more than 100 years,
coal refuse piles created eyesores throughout northeastern
Pennsylvania. These culm banks are now baseball fields and shopping
centers.
Coal ash is not hazardous. EPA determined that fact in regulatory
determinations in 1993 and in 2000. The fact that EPA continues to
leave a hazardous waste designation for coal ash on the table--even
though these three decades of science and facts point the other way--is
directly contributing to the loss of current and future recycling.
This designation would harm companies in the still emerging coal
combustion byproduct markets that make everyday products like concrete,
shingles, and wall board. It will also hinder State departments of
transportation that use CCB in job-creating highway and infrastructure
projects and overwhelm State budgets and employee resources by more
than doubling the volume of waste subject to hazardous waste controls,
and translate into increased energy rates for millions of American
consumers.
As a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I see
no better way to create jobs than to pass the highway bill. During the
last highway bill, Pennsylvania received over $10 billion, which
created over 400,000 jobs. The coal ash provision in the highway bill
only strengthens job creation. Simply put, highway spending strengthens
the fabric of our Nation's infrastructure while creating jobs for
millions of Americans.
I urge passage of the gentleman's motion to instruct.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN. I thank the very distinguished gentleman, the ranking
member on Energy and Commerce.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion to instruct
conferees to include the Coal Residuals and Reuse Management Act into
any final conference agreement on the surface transportation
authorization bill.
The bill my colleague seeks to include in the surface transportation
bill is bad policy. It has nothing to do with transportation, and it
would place communities living downstream from coal ash ponds in real
danger.
When properly recycled, coal ash and other residuals from burning
coal do have economic value--that's not the issue here, but managed
improperly, they can be extremely hazardous. Coal ash shouldn't be
dumped in unregulated ponds to contaminate water and spill into nearby
streams and rivers.
In 2008, as Mr. Rush pointed to, the Kingston fossil plant in
Tennessee failed to properly maintain its coal ash impoundment pond.
The pond collapsed, and it dumped 1.1 billion gallons of coal ash
slurry into the Clinch River and inundated several houses with up to
six feet of ash and mud. And then when they independently tested the
Clinch River after the Tennessee Valley Authority impoundment collapse,
it showed high levels of arsenic, copper, barium, cadmium, chromium,
lead, mercury, nickel, and thallium all related to that spill. The
spill contaminated the water, it killed the fish, and it destroyed
property. The cleanup pricetag is still being assessed, but it's
estimated to cost between $700 million and $1 billion. The motion my
colleague from West Virginia is proposing
[[Page H3871]]
would prevent EPA from setting standards for this type of coal ash
dump, allowing these problems to continue unchecked.
We need to preserve the Environmental Protection Agency's authority
to advance regulations that discourage improper disposal of coal ash
and to encourage recycling. Every year, coal-fired power plants and
industrial boilers in the United States generate about 67 million tons
of coal ash and slag and about 19 million tons of coal sludge.
While fly ash, bottom ash, flue gas desulfurization mineral, and
boiler slag all have a number of beneficial reuses in concrete, road,
wallboard, and roofing, they also contain heavy metals--including lead,
arsenic, cadmium, and mercury, as well as radioactive elements. These
hazardous components dictate that we must be careful in the handling
use, reuse, and disposal of the material.
Contrary to much of the publicity surrounding the coal ash issue, EPA
is not trying to ban the beneficial reuse of coal ash. In fact, EPA
proposed two separate possible regulatory regimes to encourage
recycling and reduce improper coal ash disposal. EPA wants to ensure
that coal ash reuse is preserved while guaranteeing that any disposal
is done safely and effectively.
EPA's proposed rules received extensive public involvement, including
thousands of public comments and eight public hearings around the
country. The Coal Residuals and Reuse Management Act is designed to
deprive EPA of the ability to use the best available science in its
decisions, and it would negate those thousands of public comments that
were received after the rule's proposal. It would also give a free pass
to power companies to pollute at taxpayer expense.
Coal ash is a national, interstate issue and should be subject to
Federal regulation.
As Congress stated when passing the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act:
The problems of waste disposal have become a matter
national in scope and in concern and necessitate Federal
action. Disposal of solid waste and hazardous waste in or on
the land without careful planning and management can present
a danger to human health and the environment.
That was true in 1976, and 30 years later it's still true. In the
years since, we have found that proper regulation of waste disposal
encourages rather than discourages recycling. Implementing
environmental and safety controls makes recycling far more attractive
and far more likely to occur. Thirty years of data on solid and
hazardous waste disposal and recycling have borne this out. Let's not
revisit the Wild West past of hazardous waste disposal.
We need to stand up for the same principles Congress stated in the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act over 30 years ago. That's why I
strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the McKinley motion. Prevent more
Kingston ash impoundment disasters; they will be replicated, and it
will be our fault. We need to allow EPA to regulate responsibly and to
allow the beneficial use of coal ash.
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, I might suggest, with all due respect, I
think that those who are opposing this amendment, Mr. Speaker, I would
encourage them to read the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague from wild,
wonderful West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
Mrs. CAPITO. I want to thank my colleague from West Virginia (Mr.
McKinley) for his solid work on this issue.
I want to say to my colleague from California, who said that this
issue is going to hold the transportation conference bill hostage, it's
absolutely not a fair statement. I'm on the transportation conference
committee. We're working day and night, in a bicameral, bipartisan way,
to reach a compromise on a jobs bill, and this coal ash provision is
very important.
{time} 1550
Many Americans are unfamiliar with this, but 40 percent is used as
raw material to build our highways and our bridges.
I was just visiting the Sutton Dam in Braxton County in West
Virginia. My colleague talks about the Hoover Dam. We celebrated its
50-year birthday of its construction. It's built with coal ash, and
it's just as effective today as it was 50 years ago. It is an essential
and safe material to be used in our infrastructure.
According to the American Road and Transportation Builders
Association, if we don't use coal ash in bridge and road construction,
the cost would increase over $100 billion over 20 years. We simply
can't afford this.
Let's be smart about this. We can find the way, and we've known the
way, as the Sutton Dam and the Hoover Dam have shown us. I think we can
find a way to safely reduce the costs of construction in our roads and
bridges by using coal ash.
We have unemployment of over 8 percent for 30 consecutive months. We
need a transportation bill. We need a smart transportation bill that's
going to put America back to work and rebuild our infrastructure.
Mr. McKinley's legislation, and this motion, takes the right approach
by giving the States the authority to deal with this. I hope my fellow
conferees will work to ensure that this important provision remains in
the bill, that we pass the gentleman's motion to instruct. This will
not be an obstruction to us passing the transportation bill, and I look
forward to passing that bill on the floor in a bipartisan way.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased at this time to yield 5 minutes
to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.
Today marks the summer solstice, the longest day of the year. Instead
of spending the daylight hours passing a clean transportation bill that
will help shore up real jobs for Americans, the Congress will be
spending the day repealing public health protections and giving away
nearly all of our public lands to oil and gas companies in the
culmination of the Republican majority's Oil Above All agenda. It is
really a ``Midsummer's Nightmare'' for the American people.
But before we get to voting on the Republican oil package, we get to
debate whether another Republican bill, whose sole premise is to
prevent EPA from following the scientific evidence, should be included
in the Transportation bill.
This bill says that no matter what EPA learns about the sludge that
comes out of coal-fired power plants, no matter how high the
concentrations of poisonous arsenic, mercury or chromium, no matter
what EPA learns about how these materials find their way into our
drinking water, EPA is forbidden to classify or regulate it as
hazardous waste. EPA 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 valued 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 complexion. It takes us back to an era
where children were sent deep into the bowels of the Earth to rip coal
from the mines and die early deaths.
Apparently, House Republicans not only wish to embrace the principal
energy source of the 19th century; they also wish to return us to the
19th-century principles about public health and the environment
regarding arsenic and mercury and their danger to the citizens of our
country.
Now, there are good uses for coal ash, beneficial uses. It can be
used to construct highways and shingles. That's good. It can be mixed
into concrete and grout. That's good.
But what we don't want is for the industry to be able to use it to
construct a golf course, like what they did in Battlefield, Virginia,
because it can directly contaminate the groundwater. It can pollute and
cause injury and cancers in the neighbors of that golf course.
We also don't want it to be disposed of in pits that aren't sealed to
handle this special waste, like what happened in Tennessee when a TVA
disposal pit collapsed, engulfing an entire small town in toxic sludge.
We should have regulations to protect against that ever happening in
our country again.
This is exactly what this bill, the Republican bill, will do. It will
blast us back into the past and allow coal ash to be disposed of
without proper construction or monitoring.
[[Page H3872]]
At the end of this month, transit and highway funding will expire,
hundreds of thousands of jobs are at stake, and our transportation
infrastructure will be in peril. Even Senate Republicans have
recognized the dangers inherent in allowing this to occur and have
joined with Senate Democrats to craft a bipartisan bill so we can put
people back to work using coal ash in the highways of our country.
But in spite of this, the House Republicans are insisting that
unrelated and unnecessary toxic provisions dangerous to the health and
well-being of Americans be attached to this bill in order to protect
Big Oil and Big Coal.
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 be holding them to higher expectations
for the 21st century, for the public health and well-being of our
people.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this preposterous Republican initiative.
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from
Ohio (Mr. Renacci).
Mr. RENACCI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this
motion to instruct the Surface Transportation bill conferees. The EPA's
proposed rule to classify coal ash as a hazardous material is yet
another example of this administration's continual attack on coal and
the affordable domestic energy it generates.
The production and use of coal ash has grown into a multi-billion
dollar industry supporting thousands of jobs in my home State of Ohio.
Coal ash is used in more than 75 percent of the concrete primarily
because of its cost effectiveness. Eliminating it would force concrete
producers to use expensive alternatives, driving up the cost of
building roads and bridges in America by more than $5 billion a year.
That means construction costs won't go as far at a time when our
infrastructure is in dire need of repair.
In addition, classifying coal ash as a hazardous material will prove
extremely costly for coal-fired power plants. Some energy companies may
analyze the costs and find it simply too expensive to continue
operating. Others may attempt to pass the new costs on to consumers in
the form of higher utility costs. Either way, the outcome would be
devastating for a State like Ohio that derives 80 percent of its
electric power from coal. With our economy still struggling, that is
the last thing Ohio businesses, construction companies, and families
need right now.
Despite decades of research and studies concluding there is no reason
to consider coal ash hazardous, many of which the EPA itself carried
out, the Agency now appears willing to jeopardize thousands of jobs
with this inaccurate ruling. It is critical that efforts are taken to
prevent the implementation of this regulation. Instead, allow each
State to set up their own coal ash recycling programs following
existing EPA health and environmental regulations. This approach will
protect jobs and our economy in my home State and across America.
I applaud Representative McKinley for his continued leadership on
this issue, and I urge the conferees to keep the bipartisan House
language in the final version of the Surface Transportation bill.
{time} 1600
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I now have the pleasure to yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, today the House will vote on yet another
environmental ruinous bill. This motion would instruct surface
transportation conferees to retain the language of H.R. 2273, which
prohibits the EPA from regulating coal ash.
Coal ash is the toxic combination of mercury, boron, aluminum,
thallium, sodium, and arsenic that is produced by burning coal.
Shockingly, people living near unlined coal ash ponds have a risk of
cancer that is 2,000 times greater than EPA's acceptable level.
This motion would disallow the EPA from doing its job. Allowing the
EPA to enforce safeguards against coal ash pollution would help to
avoid disasters like the 2008 spill in Tennessee, where a dam holding
more than 1 billion gallons of toxic coal ash failed. That spill
destroyed 300 acres and dozens of homes, devastated wildlife, poisoned
two rivers--and apparently taught us nothing.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this latest attempt to bar the EPA
from saving lives and preserving the environment.
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes of my remaining time to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Congressman Doyle.
Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the gentleman's motion
to instruct.
Coal ash is a serious issue for this country and especially for
Pennsylvania. Nearly all of my constituents get their power from coal,
and with that power generation comes its by-product--coal ash. It's an
unavoidable part of our power generation in southwestern Pennsylvania.
Though the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has some of the toughest coal
ash disposal standards in the country, I've been convinced that coal
ash needs to be federally regulated under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act. However, this motion to instruct does not fully encompass
my position on the issue.
Although this motion to instruct calls on conferees to insist upon
the House language on coal ash, that is not the whole story. In fact, I
support the coal ash language that the bipartisan group of Senators is
working on. I've seen much of the work they've been doing, and I can
tell you that I believe it to be an improvement on what we're doing
here in the House. The question is: Will the conferees agree to a bill
at all and will it include coal ash?
My vote in favor of this motion is meant to urge my colleagues to
finish the process so that we can resolve the coal ash issue in a way
that's good for the environment, our constituents, and the purposes of
recycling these materials.
I want to make it clear that I do not believe that any coal ash or
Keystone provisions should be used to hold up the transportation bill
conference. Above all else, it is essential that this Congress does its
job and completes the highway bill conference before the current
program expires on June 30. I continue to support the Federal
regulation of coal ash as a nonhazardous waste, and I encourage my
colleagues to work quickly towards a bipartisan, bicameral resolution
on this issue.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, another summer building season is well under way without
a long-term transportation bill; and we are, quite frankly, down to the
wire on the current funding authorization, which expires next Sunday.
Yet here we are debating the addition of even more non-transportation-
related measures.
Congressman McKinley's motion to instruct on coal ash is another
example of delay. The transportation conferees ought to be urgently
completing their work on a long-term authorization, not being saddled
with extraneous requirements which pose a threat to public health. With
thousands of jobs on hold until Congress acts, this delay is
unconscionable.
Our State Departments of Transportation gave us early warning that if
Congress did not act on a long-term transportation bill by March 31 the
summer building season would be compromised. The Senate recognized this
concern, and it sent to the House bipartisan legislation known as MAP
21, which is a bill that passed the Senate with the strong bipartisan
support of 74 Senators. Then, as we saw the March 31 deadline come and
go, House leadership refused to take up the bipartisan Senate bill,
knowing full well that carrying an extension through the summer
building season would cost jobs. And it has.
Nowhere is our Nation's fragile recovery more apparent than in my
home State of Rhode Island, which currently has an unemployment rate of
11 percent. According to RIDOT, millions of dollars in projects have
already been delayed, including a $6.4 million project to carry I-95
over Ten Rod Road in Exeter; a $1.5 million project to provide traffic
improvements on I-295
[[Page H3873]]
ramps along the borders of Cranston and Johnston; a $3.5 million
project to resurface State Street to Broad Street and Main Street to
route 1A in Westerly, Rhode Island. These projects not only improve the
infrastructure upon which our businesses and residents rely, but they
mean real jobs, desperately needed jobs, for Rhode Islanders.
MAP 21 will help rebuild America's economy so it is on a stronger,
more sustainable foundation. It will provide the financing for critical
highway and transit projects and support almost 2 million jobs, 9,000
of them in my home State of Rhode Island.
The 90-day extension, Mr. Speaker, is almost up. It was reluctantly
passed back in March with the promise of a long-term measure to follow,
a bill which has yet to materialize. We must let the conferees finish
their work, and we must let the EPA continue to do its job of
protecting the public from the risks of coal ash, which include cancer,
neurological disorders, birth defects, and asthma.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this industry-driven motion and
to vote for moving forward on the path to rebuilding our roads, our
communities, and our economy by bringing the American people a long-
term transportation bill.
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from
Texas (Mr. Olson).
Mr. OLSON. I rise in support of my good friend Mr. McKinley in his
efforts to include the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act in the
final transportation authorization bill.
EPA's goal of issuing new Federal rules to regulate coal combustion
residuals would have far-reaching and negative impacts on our economy.
These EPA rules would severely hamper American energy production,
thereby risking our Nation's ability to meet the electricity generation
we need to grow our economy and to get our country back on track
working again.
President Obama wants to eliminate coal as a source of energy for
America. This should come as no surprise to those who listened to
President Obama's comments when he was a candidate for office. He spoke
from his heart in San Francisco in 2008.
Here is a summary of what he said:
Let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I've said
is that we would put a cap-and-trade system in place that is
as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's
out there.
He later said:
So, if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they
can. It's just that it will bankrupt them because they're
going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas
that's being emitted.
We need common sense at the EPA, and we need a President who
understands that an all-of-the-above strategy includes American coal.
That is why I am supporting Mr. McKinley's Coal Residuals Reuse and
Management Act in the final transportation authorization bill, and I
urge my colleagues to vote for Mr. McKinley's motion to instruct
conferees.
Mr. MARKEY. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the next 2 minutes of my time to
my colleague from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
Mr. RAHALL. I thank the gentleman from West Virginia for yielding, my
good friend, and I commend him for his dogged determination on this
issue and for his patience and persistence. I certainly rise in support
of this motion to instruct.
This gentleman from West Virginia was, after all, the Democratic
floor manager of the House bill which got us into conference with the
Senate. It accepted the amendment offered by Mr. McKinley, which passed
by a voice vote on April 18.
{time} 1610
This amendment, known as the ``coal ash provision,'' is an important
provision; and I, like many others, do not want to see it derail the
entire transportation bill in its entirety. But I think if this body
were to follow the instructions of the House, both in this motion and
in the previous motion adopted by Mr. Walz of Minnesota, which
instructed conferees to report back by June 22, then I believe we would
have a transportation bill that this Nation would benefit from and our
American workers would benefit.
Since 1980, the EPA has struggled to figure out whether coal ash
should be regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
and, if so, in what fashion. As of this date, 32 years later, no EPA
regulation is in place.
The Agency had its shot, and now it's time to move on. The provision
by the House is aimed at the States bolstering their programs governing
the regulation of coal ash and includes enforcement actions if they
fail to do so.
Given the nexus between the use of coal ash and the manufacturing of
cement and that product's use in our transportation system, it is an
appropriate matter to be considered within the scope of the conference
of the transportation bill.
Contrary to some remarks we've heard on the floor today, these
motions to instruct do not delay the work of conferees. Being a
conferee myself, I know that the conference continues to meet with
proposals going back and forth.
We're currently playing ping-pong on a lot of these proposals, but
that's good. It means that we're talking, and it means the process is
going forward. I'm very optimistic and hopeful that we can reach
agreement sooner rather than later so that America's economy can
continue to recover and American workers can go back to work with
certainty.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I inquire of the Chair how much time is
remaining on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). The gentleman from
Massachusetts has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from West
Virginia has 9 minutes remaining.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I then continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
Mr. WHITFIELD. I rise today to support Mr. McKinley's motion to
instruct conferees to the highway transportation bill to stop the EPA
from regulating coal ash as a hazardous material.
Since the formation of the EPA, the EPA has looked periodically at
coal ash. Most recently, they did it in 1993 and 2000 under the Clinton
administration and came to the conclusion that coal ash does not
warrant being regulated as a hazardous waste.
The only difference between today and then is that this
administration is determined to put the coal business out of business,
yet America gets about 48 percent of its electricity from coal. We
cannot expect to meet the demands of this Nation's electricity needs
over the next 20 years without coal.
If the EPA is successful in treating coal ash as a hazardous waste,
which is quite radical, we know that independent analyses have shown
that the costs associated with road and bridge building in America will
increase by more than $100 billion over a 20-year period. And in
America today, to stimulate our economy, to get our goods to market, we
need to improve the infrastructure of this country.
At this time in our Nation's history, with the economic problems that
we have, to try to increase the cost for construction to meet the vital
needs of this country is really unconscionable, particularly when
there's been no causal relationship found between coal ash and health
problems.
Mr. WAXMAN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes of the remaining time to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Critz).
Mr. CRITZ. I thank the gentleman from West Virginia for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the McKinley motion to
instruct conferees, asking that the bipartisan-supported coal
combustion residuals program language from H.R. 4348 be retained in the
final transportation reauthorization bill.
Coal ash is of critical importance, as it is contained in the
composition of the concrete used in our roads, bridges, and other
infrastructure. The use of coal ash in transportation has allowed our
country to maintain lower costs for infrastructure building.
Studies have shown that coal ash costs 20 to 50 percent less than
other products on the market today. During a time when our roads are
deficient and we need solutions that are cost efficient, coal ash
serves as a reliable resource. We need to invest in materials
[[Page H3874]]
that will allow us the highest return on investment and stretch our
highway dollars for needed improvements.
In addition to the cost savings that this will provide, including
this language is also critical to support our environment and nearly
300,000 jobs that rely on coal ash use across the Nation.
In western Pennsylvania, I've witnessed the importance of coal ash to
many communities in my district and surrounding areas. We have seen a
transformation from orange skies and orange streams to an area whose
beauty has been restored thanks to the safe use of coal ash for
landfill, transportation use, and other purposes.
For these reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to include in the
final conference report the McKinley language so critical to our
Nation's economic and infrastructure needs.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
The way I understand the argument on the other side is that, if the
EPA regulates coal ash and calls it hazardous, that stigma will lead
construction companies to avoid it as a building material.
If I could address the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. McKinley. Is
that an accurate statement, that you're fearful of the designation and
the stigma of that designation as hazardous?
I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. McKINLEY. You say is there going to be a stigma?
Mr. WAXMAN. Is your fear that, if the EPA regulates coal ash and it's
called hazardous, that that designation will be a stigma and will lead
to the nonuse of coal ash by construction companies as a building
material?
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Waxman, I believe there is a stigma associated with
that pending decision, yes.
Mr. WAXMAN. That is your fear?
Mr. McKINLEY. There is a stigma associated with the misinformation
that's been disseminated. That's correct.
Mr. WAXMAN. My colleagues, the thing that is so confusing to me is
that coal ash is often used as a substitute for Portland cement in
concrete to lower the costs; it reduces the waste, reduces the
greenhouse gas emissions, and we don't need to pass legislation to have
that happen.
But I want to point out that Portland cement is designated as
hazardous. It's a hazardous chemical under the OSHA Hazard
Communications rule. It's a hazardous substance under the Superfund
amendments. It's a hazardous substance under Federal Hazardous
Substances Act, and it's a hazardous material under the Canadian
Hazardous Products Act. But Portland cement continues to be used
extensively in concrete and transportation projects.
The EPA is not seeking to call coal ash ``hazardous.'' They want to
call it a ``special waste.'' But even if they called it hazardous, why
would it not be used the way Portland cement is now used, even though
that substance is designated as hazardous in all these other statutes?
Mr. McKINLEY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. McKINLEY. What we're trying to do is allow more time for the
conference committee to work rather than to debate the pros and cons of
the environmental aspects of it. We want the committee to continue to
work, to reach a compromise. And I've been told there's been great
progress being made on that, but don't stop at this 11th hour. They're
close to making it happen. We want to stand beside them and make sure
they finish their work on these negotiations.
{time} 1620
Mr. WAXMAN. Reclaiming my time, I yield myself 1 additional minute.
The reason I ask for more time is, as I understand the McKinley bill,
which was adopted by the House, it would prohibit EPA from regulating
coal ash because it would be designated possibly as hazardous. And the
argument has been that that would be a problem when it is to be used as
a substance for concrete and building materials. But I don't believe
that to be the case.
Now I think that the committee, with the Senate and the House, ought
to complete its business. But I don't think your amendment is needed
under any circumstances. That is why I urge Members to vote against
this instruction because it is trying to interject in that highway bill
something that's really not part of the highway bill and something
that, on its own, should not be adopted in the form of the McKinley
bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia has 5\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from California has 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes of my time to my fellow
engineering colleague from the State of Texas (Mr. Barton).
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I wasn't planning on speaking on this bill. But I was listening in my
office to the debate between the proponents and opponents of the bill
and felt moved to come over and try to answer some of the questions
that the opponents have asked of the bill.
EPA is supposed to be a fair referee. They're supposed to say: If
it's a strike, it's a strike; if it's a ball, it's a ball; if he's out,
he's out; if he's safe, he's safe. But the Obama EPA is not a fair
referee. It's not a fair umpire. The Obama EPA has a preconceived--what
I consider to be a radical environmental agenda, and they appear heck-
bent to impose it on the American people, whether there is a scientific
rationale or not.
As Mr. Olson of Texas just pointed out, the President, as a
candidate, said that he basically wanted to try to make it impossible
to build any more coal-fired power plants in America. When he became
President, he appointed a regional administrator down in Texas, Dr.
Armendariz, who said that he wanted to try to put hydraulic fracturing
out of business and brought a case against Range Resources in Texas
that was thrown out on its face because of the lack of evidence that
there was any environmental damage caused by hydraulic fracturing, in
this specific case in Parker County.
You had the civil servant at the EPA early in the Obama
administration, when they were considering their endangerment finding,
which they had to impose in order to say they could regulate greenhouse
gases, they had a career civil servant who sent a detailed, I think 50-
or 60-page analysis of the proposed endangerment finding and basically
said it was hogwash. And he got back emails from within the White House
and the higher rankings at political subdivisions of the EPA that said,
Don't tell us the facts. We've already made up our minds.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McKINLEY. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. This same Dr. Armendariz made a comment not too
many years ago that he wanted to crucify industry. He has since
resigned because of those comments.
Those of us who support the McKinley motion to instruct do so because
we don't think the current EPA is fair. Sometimes we have to tell the
EPA what to do because they seem to be incapable of applying basic
scientific methods, scientific principles. They want to impose a
radical environmental agenda, apparently. And some of us don't think
that's right, and we don't think it's good for the American people and
the American economy.
So I strongly support what my good friend from West Virginia is doing
because it at least makes it possible for a source that, for years and
years and decades, has been used without any problem at all to continue
to be used. And I think that's a good thing. So I rise in support. I
thank the gentleman for the time, and I hope the House will adopt his
motion to instruct conferees.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, the gentleman from Texas told
us that he was so moved to come here to correct the record. But he told
us three things that are absolutely inaccurate:
The President has never said he doesn't want to build new power
plants in this country. It is not true. The gentleman from Texas who
worked for the EPA never said that this administration, or that he
personally, was against hydraulic fracturing. It's just not true.
[[Page H3875]]
And the analysis of the endangerment finding by the Bush administration
was signed off on not by just a career civil servant, but by the head
of the EPA, appointed by President Bush.
So when you get these wrong statements in your head, you can dream up
a reason to be paranoid about EPA. EPA wants to protect the public
health and safety in regulating coal ash, but in doing so, they will
not prevent coal ash from being used for other building purposes.
I urge that we defeat this motion to instruct, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, it's fairly obvious that a lot of the
folks that have been speaking on the other side of this issue have not
read the bill and don't understand what's included in the provision.
But perhaps reading the bill, reading the amendment would have given
them greater insight as to the role of the EPA. Because by virtue of
this amendment, we are giving them great insight, great involvement in
the proper disposal of the amount of fly ash that's not recycled.
So, Mr. Speaker, it really just comes down to an issue being very
clear. Our opponents are just opposed to the coal industry. They're
opposed to the men and women working in our coal industry. They're
opposed to the 700-plus coal-fired electric utilities. They're opposed
to keeping utility costs low. There is a war on coal, Mr. Speaker. And
it's time that we stand up for the coal workers, the men and women
working in the coalfields all across the United States, and for the men
and women and the consumers that use electricity at low cost.
Now let's go to what the Departments of Interior and Transportation
have said: The Department of Interior said that they concur that if fly
ash is designated as hazardous waste, as is being considered, fully or
in a hybrid classification, it would no longer be used in concrete. It
also said, ``Fly ash costs approximately 20 to 50 percent less than the
cost of cement.'' The Department of Transportation: ``Fly ash is a
valuable byproduct used in highway construction. It is a vital
component of concrete and a number of other infrastructure uses.''
Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join me today in
supporting this motion to instruct conferees to continue discussing
this bipartisan negotiation on this part of the highway bill and to ask
their Senators to do the same. Let's maximize the use of all the money
that we have available to build more roads, rebuild more bridges, do
more infrastructure, but most importantly, put America back to work.
So I encourage my colleagues to vote for this motion to instruct, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
General Leave
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous materials on my motion to instruct conferees on
H.R. 4348.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from West Virginia?
There was no objection.
____________________