[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14546-14572]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    STOP THE WAR ON COAL ACT OF 2012


                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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 material on the bill, H.R. 3409.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Westmoreland). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 788 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3409.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1716


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3409) to limit the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to 
issue regulations before December 31, 2013, under the Surface

[[Page 14547]]

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, with Mr. LaTourette in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  General debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified 
in House Resolution 788 and shall not exceed 1 hour equally divided 
among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Natural Resources, the chair and ranking minority of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Mica), and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in his 2008 campaign, President Obama plainly declared 
the policies he supports would bankrupt American coal production. Since 
taking office, the Obama administration has waged a multi-front war on 
coal, on coal jobs, on the small businesses in the mining supply chain, 
and on the low cost energy that millions of Americans rely on.
  Mr. Chairman, amazingly the Obama administration has repeatedly tried 
to deny that they've launched a war on coal, yet the facts are stubborn 
things. Just this week, Alpha Natural Resources announced the closure 
of 8 coal mines that will cost over 1,200 good-paying jobs. Aggressive 
regulations were specifically cited by the company for the closure of 
these mines.
  New regulations opposed by the Obama EPA threaten to shut down the 
Navajo Generating Station, a coal-fired power plant in Arizona. This 
would cost hundreds of jobs and eliminate millions of dollars in 
revenue for Navajo tribal economic development, education, and basic 
services.

                              {time}  1720

  These lost jobs aren't random events. They are the direct result of 
the policies and actions of the Obama administration. These are the 
outcomes of their regulatory war on coal.
  For more than a year and a half, the Natural Resources Committee has 
been aggressively investigating one of the Obama administration's most 
covert but outrageous fronts in this war--a decision by the Interior 
Department to rapidly rewrite a regulation governing coal mining near 
streams.
  Within days of taking office, the Obama administration simply threw 
out the Stream Buffer Zone Rule that had undergone 5 years of 
environmental analysis and public review. They used a short-circuited 
process to hire a contractor to write this new regulation. When the 
news media revealed the official analysis of this rewrite and of the 
new Obama regulation showing that it would cost 7,000 jobs and cause 
economic harm in 22 States, the administration fired the contractor and 
continued to charged ahead.
  To date, the committee's investigation has exposed gross 
mismanagement of the rulemaking process, potential political 
interference, and the widespread economic harm this regulation would 
cause. The Interior Department refuses to comply with congressional 
subpoenas to produce documents and information that would fully reveal 
how and why this regulation was being rewritten. An interim report by 
the committee was issued today that details the specific findings and 
information uncovered in this investigation. The report is available at 
the committee's Web site at naturalresources
.house.gov.
  Mr. Chairman, it's not a matter of if the new Obama regulation will 
be imposed, but when. Television cameras overheard President Obama 
whispering to the Russian Prime Minister that he will have more 
flexibility after the election. It doesn't take a canary in the coal 
mine--no pun intended--to figure out the Interior Department's new 
Stream Buffer Zone regulation on coal is being held back and concealed 
until after the November election, which is when this President would 
have more flexibility to unleash its job-destroying impacts.
  That's why Congress must act now to stop this. This new regulation 
must be halted. Title I of today's bill, the Stop the War on Coal Act, 
is authored by our colleague from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), and it prohibits 
the Obama administration from issuing this new regulation. It allows 
time to responsibly undertake an open, transparent rulemaking that 
fairly accounts for job and economic impacts.
  President Obama's war on coal is real. The lost jobs are already 
happening, and thousands more are at risk. Americans' energy costs are 
already too high, and the war on coal will drive them even higher. So I 
urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and from all regions in 
the country to support this bill and to stop these red tape attacks on 
American jobs and on American-made energy.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in opposition to this bill. The Republicans are saying that 
there is a war on coal, but the only battle coal is losing is in the 
free market--to natural gas, to wind and to solar. Just 4 years ago, 
coal generated 51 percent of the electricity in the United States. Now 
it is down to 35 percent. When you add up hydropower, the renewables, 
natural gas, and the other gases, you get 44 percent of our electricity 
sector.
  Just like Governor Romney says he has given up on 47 percent of 
Americans, the House Republicans have given up on 44 percent of our 
electricity sector. Just like their politics grips tightly to the past, 
their energy policies hold fast to the energy technologies and the 
fuels of yesterday, like coal and oil.
  The free market has been replacing coal with natural gas, which has 
grown from 21 percent of our electricity generation back in 2005 and 
2006, and has now risen to 30 percent of all electrical generation in 
the United States. Natural gas. It's not a war, it's a revolution. What 
has happened is, simultaneously, coal has come down to 35 percent. 
Surprising, isn't it? The numbers look like they match up pretty 
perfectly, especially if you add up the rise from 1 percent to 4 
percent of the electricity in the United States which has been 
generated by wind over the last 5 years. That's what's happening, 
ladies and gentlemen.
  All the rest of this I don't understand, to be honest with you. It's 
almost like the Republicans are rejecting the free market as it is now 
operating as the country is moving to natural gas. I understand the 
coal State Members have to stand up and defend this change in the 
marketplace, but I don't understand why my other Republican friends 
would reject those free market principles.
  Why is this switch from coal to natural gas happening? It's because 
natural gas is cheaper. Natural gas prices have decreased by 66 percent 
since 2008. It is cheaper to produce new electricity from natural gas 
than from coal. This isn't a conspiracy--it is a competition--but 
Republicans say that there is a war on coal. Well, in a market sense, 
that war is now being won. When I was a boy, I had to go down into the 
basement with my father to shovel the coal. That's how we kept our 
house warm. Then my mother said let's move to home heating oil, and so 
my father had the home heating oil come. That was a revolution. And now 
there is another revolution going on.
  Up in the Northeast, for example, because of the low price of natural 
gas, 1.4 million Northeast households have switched from oil to natural 
gas over the last decade. And why is that? Again, it costs $2,238 to 
heat your home through the winter with home heating oil, and it costs 
$629 to heat your home with natural gas. That's why they're switching. 
The same thing is happening in the petrochemical industry. They're 
switching from oil over to natural gas.

[[Page 14548]]

In the fertilizer industry, they're switching from oil over to natural 
gas. The price is low. They are moving in that direction. That's the 
larger story that is occurring--the natural gas revolution in the 
United States of America.
  So, ladies and gentlemen, I just urge all of you to understand that 
this is not the Obama administration in a war against coal. That is not 
what is going on. There is a paranoia-inducing, Darwinian marketplace 
revolution that is taking place--led by natural gas, followed by wind--
that is changing the makeup of the electricity marketplace in our 
country. Only when you understand and admit this will we be able to 
have a real debate out here, because all the rest of this is really 
just meant to be political, in order to harm the President in the 
election of 2012, when the real harm to coal is being done in the 
marketplace.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
2 minutes to the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  During his 2008 election campaign, President Obama had the audacity 
to set an energy goal to bankrupt the coal industry. Unfortunately, 
this is one promise the President is keeping. Coal mines are closing, 
miners are being sent home--our strategic energy advantage thrown away 
for windmills and Solyndras.
  Mr. Chairman, I know miners. Day in and day out, they make real 
personal sacrifices--often doing difficult and, at times, dangerous 
jobs--not only to look out for their families but to keep our homes 
lit, to support their local churches, to keep our local businesses 
flourishing, and to help the American economy. Coal is not America's 
energy problem; it is America's energy solution.
  Sadly, for the last 3 years, this administration has brought forth an 
onslaught of job-killing regulations, overstepped authority--three 
times condemned by the Federal court, and deadlocked the mine 
permitting process--all with the thinly veiled purpose of driving coal 
from the energy marketplace.
  In Kentucky, the results are in. In my region, more than 2,000 coal 
miners have lost their jobs this year, and dozens of local support 
businesses are downsizing as a result.

                              {time}  1730

  The story is the same in Virginia, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania, 
where last week, 1,200 more workers were given pink slips. It's time 
for this to stop, Mr. Chairman. This war on coal is real. It threatens 
the way of life of these small town communities with rich legacies and 
real people, our countrymen.
  Mr. Chairman, I'm proud to stand in support of coal miners and coal 
communities and support the Stop the War on Coal Act, H.R. 3409. It 
sends a clear message that the Obama policies are wrongheaded not only 
for coal, but for our country.
  I urge passage to put coal miners back to work.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield the remainder of our time to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the ranking member on 
the committee.
  This Republican-led House has already cast 302--soon to be more--
anti-environmental votes in this Congress. In our last week in session 
before the election in November, our eighth day in session since the 
beginning of August, the majority now wants to use this precious time 
when we should be dealing with the Nation's economic problems. Instead, 
we are planning to consider legislation on the floor that will add to 
this total of anti-environmental votes.
  No, there is no war on coal, not by the Obama administration or 
anyone else. Mr. Markey has explained the market forces at work. But 
there clearly has been a concerted effort. One out of every five votes 
we've taken in this Congress has been to reduce protections on our air, 
on our water, on our open spaces, et cetera.
  This bill includes a coal ash title that endangers the health and 
safety of thousands of communities, provisions that would increase the 
levels of toxic mercury, lead, and cancer-causing toxins in the air and 
water. There are provisions in this bill that gut the Clean Air Act.
  Why the House would waste precious time redebating these bills and 
voting on them once again is a mystery to me and I think must be a 
mystery to anyone who is observing the behavior of this House of 
Representatives. It only underscores the fact that the House Republican 
majority is more focused on passing message bills than addressing the 
real issues that face our Nation.
  The remaining new title of this bill consists of a bill that was 
approved in the Resources Committee back in February. It purports to 
halt an ongoing effort by the Obama administration to rewrite a so-
called ``midnight regulation'' that was adopted by the Bush 
administration on mountaintop removal mining. This Bush midnight 
mountaintop removal rule weakened a Reagan-era regulation by increasing 
the ability of the mining companies to dump mining waste in streams. 
Yes, believe it or not, they want to weaken those protections. It's 
another provision of this bill before us today.
  The Obama administration has signaled that it intends to revise the 
Bush administration regulation to better protect local communities, to 
better protect public health, to better protect the water. However, 
this effort is only at the very early stages, and the Obama 
administration has not even issued a proposed rule. This is 
unnecessary, going in the wrong direction, and weakening environmental 
protections for this country.
  Those are reasons enough to oppose this bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining 
on both sides?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has 3\1/2\ minutes, and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts has 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I would be more than happy to yield 3 
minutes to the author of the legislation that is encompassed in title I 
of this bill, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding 
me the time.
  My colleague just commented on the Bush administration's rewrite of 
the Stream Buffer Zone rule that took 5 years. He qualified that as a 
``midnight rewrite.'' My goodness, that was a really long night. It 
took 5 years to do it.
  Today, I rise in strong support of legislation that I've sponsored to 
stop the administration's job-destroying war on coal. This legislation 
is in direct response to the President's ongoing rewrite of the Stream 
Buffer Zone rule, a rule that, according to the administration's own 
estimates, would cost at least 7,000 direct jobs and potentially tens 
of thousands of direct and indirect jobs.
  Mere days after assuming office, President Obama set out to rewrite 
this rule that will cost tens of thousands of jobs, cut coal production 
by up to 50 percent in America, and cause electricity rates to 
skyrocket even higher than the President has already pushed them.
  As we all know, the average utility bill for the middle class has 
risen over $300 a year because of this President's radical 
environmental policies. The last thing the middle class needs is their 
utility bills to go even higher. However, if the story ended there, it 
would be bad enough, but it doesn't end there. It actually gets much 
worse.
  The President's administration has deliberately tried to hide the 
truth about the cost of this rule to the American public. In fact, a 
Presidential appointee asked the contractors working on the rule to lie 
about the job loss numbers so the administration could convince the 
American public that this rule was good public policy. Thankfully, the 
contractors were men and women of character and would not lie for the 
administration. The President's administration then fired those 
contractors.

[[Page 14549]]

  The Natural Resources Committee has subpoenaed the administration for 
documents and audio recordings relating to the rule. Not surprisingly, 
as we have seen many times before, the President has failed to live up 
to his campaign promise of leading the most open and transparent 
government ever, because he has not allowed the administration to turn 
over the documents that we've asked for because he knows they will hurt 
his reelection prospects.
  This legislation is not about a sloppy and unethical rules process. 
This legislation is about saving tens of thousands of jobs for 
hardworking Americans, and it's about providing reliable and affordable 
energy resources for hardworking taxpayers and businesses all across 
America.
  Throughout the country, hardworking coal miners and utility plant 
workers are losing their jobs because of this President's radical 
environmental policies. Just this week, hundreds of coal miners were 
told they would lose their jobs because of the President's anticoal 
stance. Just today, a utility company announced that they would close a 
coal-fired power plant and hundreds more workers would lose their jobs. 
These job losses are in addition to the thousands of Ohioans in eastern 
and southeastern Ohio that have lost their jobs because of the 
President's radical policies.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 
seconds.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. This legislation will bring a stop to the 
administration's war on coal by not only stopping the job-destroying 
rewrite of the Stream Buffer Zone rule, but it also contains four 
bipartisan bills that have already been passed through the House.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this job-saving legislation.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation is drafted so broadly that it's likely 
to cause real damage. It would prevent the Interior Department from 
issuing nearly any new regulation under the Surface Mining Control and 
Reclamation Act. The bill would prevent the Interior Department from 
undertaking any of a number of actions that it is considering to ensure 
that mining operations are safe for the workers and for the public and 
for our environment. I filed an amendment to narrow the scope of this 
title, but the majority would not make it in order.
  Furthermore, H.R. 3409 would completely paralyze the Office of 
Surface Mining, which is responsible for protecting the citizens and 
workers, and we should not limit this agency when it comes to worker 
safety.

                              {time}  1740

  This bill would threaten public health by blocking the critical Clean 
Air Act regulations that limit dangerous air pollutants, as I said 
earlier, including mercury in the air that we breathe.
  This is an irresponsible bill; it is unnecessary. We have important 
work to do to shore up this economy and to create jobs. Why in the 
world we are doing this is beyond anybody's reasonable explanation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time, 
and I will do my best to capsulize.
  Mr. Chairman, it was the President, when he was a candidate, that 
said that his policies, if enacted, would cost coal jobs.
  For nearly 4 years we have seen evidence of that, and the latest 
example of that was when Alpha Coal Company laid off 1,200 people, 
citing the regulations that the President said he would promulgate. 
This is a good bill. I urge its adoption.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I am going to say that I'm a little bit shocked that people would be 
so critical of this bill and saying that this bill is not important.
  All of us know that President Obama, when he was running for 
President, made the comment that if he was elected President, you could 
build a coal-power plant, but he would bankrupt the industry.
  Our friends on the other side of the aisle say, well, coal is having 
problems today because natural gas prices are going down. Let's let the 
free market work, and coal is losing out because of these natural gas 
prices.
  The truth of the matter is, if natural gas prices were higher than 
they had been in the history of America, under this administration, if 
they finalize the greenhouse gas regulation, you cannot build a new 
coal-powered plant in America. One of the things that this bill does is 
it simply says, no, you're not going to regulate the greenhouse gases 
with this regulation.
  The second thing that it does is this administration has been more 
aggressive than any in recent history on regulating the coal industry. 
The second thing that we do is we simply require the Department of 
Commerce to lead an interagency committee that will complete analysis 
of key EPA rules and regulations and the impact that they have on jobs 
in America, on our ability to compete in the global marketplace, on the 
energy prices, on energy reliability, and on the benefits.
  What is so radical about that? An interagency task force to simply 
examine the cost of this cumulation of the impact of the regulations on 
energy prices, impact on global competitiveness, impact on energy 
reliability. What is so radical about that?
  Then, finally, the third thing that it does is we say we're going to 
establish minimum Federal requirements for the management of coal ash. 
Coal ash has been used in America for 50 years or more to build 
highways and to be used in concrete. All we're saying is we're going to 
set a minimum Federal standard, and we're going to let the States 
enforce it through enforceable permits. Then EPA can get into the 
action if they want to if the State fails to act.
  I don't view this as anything radical. If you go to any coal mine 
today, and you tell people that work in those coal mines that this 
administration is not harming their ability to work, I think you would 
be facing a losing argument.
  One of the things that upsets me most about all these regulations is 
that when Lisa Jackson comes to testify, she talks about all of the 
benefits from a health perspective. I would be the first to acknowledge 
our air today is cleaner than it has ever been and all of us can take 
pleasure in that and feel very proud about the effectiveness that the 
Clean Air Act has given us.
  The important thing today is to recognize that there are diminishing 
returns in these additional regulations.
  If you look at the cost to the coal miner and his family when they 
lose their health care, the EPA does not look at the impact that that 
will have, the costs that that will have to society; but they look at 
models, and they determine that maybe next year they're going to 
prevent 1 million people from having asthma, which is quite subjective.
  This is a reasonable piece of legislation that simply tries to slow 
down EPA, particularly at a time when our economy is weak, when we're 
trying to create jobs, not lose jobs, and when we're trying to be and 
remain competitive in the global marketplace with countries like China 
that are stepping up the use of their coal when we're sitting here with 
a 225-year reserve of coal.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Over the past 2 years, this Republican House has amassed the most 
anti-environment record in the history of Congress.
  During this period, the Republican House has voted more than 300 
times on the floor to weaken long-standing public health and 
environmental protections, block important environmental standards, and 
even halt environmental research. It's an appalling record.
  I remember a time when there was bipartisan support for protecting 
the environment. Some of our best allies were Republicans like former 
Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert. It would have been 
unthinkable

[[Page 14550]]

then to bring a bill that eviscerates the Clean Air Act and the Clean 
Water Act to the floor. But those days are apparently over.
  Our last order of business before the election in 2012 is this bill, 
H.R. 3409. This is the single worst anti-environment bill to be 
considered during the most anti-environment House of Representatives in 
history. Under the guise of protecting coal mining jobs, House 
Republicans have resurrected their most extreme anti-environmental 
bills.
  This new Frankenstein legislation is a sweeping attack on 
environmental protections, many of which had nothing to do with coal. 
It's an all-out assault on America's bedrock environmental protections.
  Since 1970, when Richard Nixon was the President of the United 
States, the U.S. has had a national policy that air should be safe 
enough for people to breathe. The Republican bill that we're 
considering today would overturn this policy and cut the heart out of 
the Clean Air Act by allowing air quality standards to be set on the 
basis of polluter profits rather than health. This would reverse 
decades of progress in cleaning up our air. The gentleman that just 
last spoke on the floor said it was great, he likes the fact that we 
have cleaner air, but enough is enough.

                              {time}  1750

  The standards that we see being changed would no longer be based on 
health.
  The bill also nullifies EPA's rules to require power plants to 
finally reduce their emissions of toxic mercury, which can cause brain 
damage and learning disabilities in infants and children. Blocking 
reductions in toxic air pollution means more heart attacks, more asthma 
attacks, more emergency room visits, and more premature deaths. Well, 
we've had enough of those kinds of clean air. Why have we've got to go 
backwards and allow toxic pollution to do harm to so many people?
  But the bill doesn't stop there. It would overturn the Obama 
administration's historic vehicle fuel efficiency and carbon pollution 
standards. These standards are supported by the auto industry because 
they provide the industry with regulatory certainty and a single, 
national program. The standards will boost our energy independence by 
saving over 2 million barrels of oil a day. They will save consumers 
thousands of dollars at the pump over the life of a vehicle. The 
savings to American consumers will be equivalent to lowering gasoline 
prices by $1 per gallon.
  These standards that the Republican bill would overturn are a victory 
for the auto industry, consumers, and the environment. They have 
nothing to do with coal. But House Republicans are targeting them 
anyway.
  The legislation would prohibit EPA from taking any action to reduce 
dangerous carbon pollution. It codifies climate science denial by 
overturning EPA's scientific finding that carbon pollution endangers 
health and welfare. The premise of title II of this bill is that 
climate change is a hoax. The bill even eliminates the existing 
requirement that oil refineries, chemical plants, and other large 
polluters disclose how much carbon pollution they are releasing.
  The signs that climate change is already occurring are all around us. 
The recent wildfires, drought, and heat waves are exactly the types of 
extreme weather events that scientists have been predicting for years. 
The House Republican solution to the greatest environmental challenge 
of our time is to bury their heads in the sand and pretend it isn't 
happening. And they call this bill a moderate, not extreme, one.
  This assault on the Nation's environmental laws will be the last 
order of business before the House adjourns for the election. It won't 
go anywhere in the Senate. It is a partisan, political bill that is 
distracting us from dealing with the real problems facing our Nation, 
like creating jobs and strengthening our economy.
  We should stay here, Mr. Chairman, and do some real work for a 
change. This political bill is the wrong direction for America.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. May I ask how much time we have remaining on our side?
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Woodall). The gentleman from Kentucky has 4\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you.
  At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. 
Blackburn), who's a valuable member of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his good work 
on this piece of legislation.
  Mr. Chair, there is a war being waged on energy and on coal in this 
country. But it's not coming from another country; it is coming from 
our own government. And we see this taking place every day.
  Here are a few facts. The United States produces 35 percent of the 
world's coal, which is more than any other country in the entire world. 
Most Americans think that we should be using our natural resources to 
improve the quality of life and to benefit our citizens. And indeed we 
should. We have more than 250 billion tons of recoverable coal here in 
this country.
  Coal produced about 42 percent of all the electricity that was 
generated in the U.S. last year. Shutting down the coal industry might 
sound like a good idea at the Sierra Club meeting, but it doesn't make 
any sense. This legislation is needed because it puts the brakes on the 
EPA. I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. McKinley).
  Mr. McKINLEY. I rise today in an effort to stop this administration's 
war on coal. Those who believe that there is no war on coal are in 
dangerous denial. The actions of this administration against coal have 
caused massive uncertainty in the marketplace.
  Obama's war on coal has come in waves. First, with the retroactive 
retracting of mine water permits, shutting down a coal mine. New source 
performance standards, shutting down all new coal mine construction. 
Utility MACT is shutting down all existing powerhouses. Boiler MACT; 
particulate matter; stream buffer rule; treating coal ash as a 
hazardous material; cross-state air pollution; slow-walking over 900 
coal mining permits.
  I'm here to support the coal ash provision with this. The majority in 
the House and the Senate have already four times passed this concept. 
They support this issue.
  This is not a war on coal, though. It's a war on the communities that 
mine coal. When you shut down a coal mine, you shut down concrete block 
suppliers, timber cribbing, machinists who maintain the motors and 
equipment, and electrical workers.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains on each 
side?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 3\3/4\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Kentucky has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. WAXMAN. We have an additional speaker who is on his way, so I 
continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan), who's the vice chairman of the Energy and 
Power Subcommittee.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3409, the Stop the 
War on Coal Act. This bill would help reverse the negative impact of 
President Obama's coal policies and protect American jobs from 
overregulation by the EPA.
  The Obama administration is trying to regulate what they don't have 
the votes to legislate, and it's costing American jobs. Just this week, 
Alpha Natural Resources announced the elimination of 1,200 jobs due to 
the Obama administration's hostility towards the coal industry. The 
relief this bill provides cannot come soon enough.

[[Page 14551]]

  One of the main provisions of the bill is the TRAIN Act. It's 
bipartisan legislation I authored and the House passed last year. The 
TRAIN Act forces EPA to conduct an in-depth cost benefit analysis of 
their most expensive power sector regulations so the American people 
can fully understand how the EPA's train wreck of regulations is 
impacting our economy.
  At its heart, the TRAIN Act simply asks these questions:
  What do these EPA regulations mean for the ability to compete in a 
global marketplace?
  Will electricity prices climb, and by how much?
  How would higher electricity prices and power plant closures affect 
jobs in the U.S. economy?
  This is the right thing to do. I urge the passage of this measure.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Pompeo), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. POMPEO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  When you think of coal and jobs, you don't necessarily think of 
Kansas. But in Kansas we depend on affordable, abundant energy to build 
airplanes, to grow crops--all of the things that come with affordable 
energy. This legislation stopping the President's war on coal is 
important to jobs not only in coal country, but in Kansas and 
everyplace. We're trying for economic growth all across the country.
  It's simply implausible to imagine how you can regulate an industry 
and try and shut down any new coal-fired power plants, and then try and 
take money and subsidize it and think you've got good energy policy all 
across America. It should come as no surprise that we have 23 million 
people out of work, economic growth under 2 percent, and these EPA 
regulations that continue, one on top of another, are a primary cause 
of that.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. We have no further requests for time, and I reserve 
the balance of my time to close.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 45 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from the State of New Jersey, an important member of our 
committee, the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee, Frank 
Pallone.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in opposition to 
H.R. 3409, another in a string of bills put forth by the most anti-
environment House in the history of Congress.
  I would like to specifically reference title V of the legislation, 
which bars EPA from reviewing permits that allow mining companies to 
dump the material they blast off the top of mountains into streams and 
valleys.
  Last year, EPA issued a decision to reject proposed disposal of 
mountaintop mining waste into West Virginia streams on the Spruce Mine 
No. 1 property.
  Let me stress that this was an extremely rare action taken by EPA, 
and the first time it has used the Clean Water Act to overturn an 
approved mining permit.
  This mine would have dumped 110 million cubic yards of coal mine 
waste into nearby streams, burying more than 6 miles of high-quality 
streams in Logan County and causing permanent damage to the ecosystem.
  The surface mining in the steep slopes of Appalachia has disrupted 
the biological integrity of an area about the size of Delaware, buried 
approximately 2,000 miles of streams with mining waste, and 
contaminated downstream areas with toxic elements.
  People have been drinking the by-products of coal waste from 
mountaintop removal for more than two decades. Rather than clean and 
clear water running out of their faucets, the people of Appalachia are 
left with orange or black liquid instead.
  But this is not just about the environment. It's about public health. 
The health problems caused by exposure to these chemicals and heavy 
metals include cancer, organ failure, and learning disabilities. Not 
only that, but there are multiple cases of children suffering from 
asthma, headaches, nausea, and other symptoms likely due to toxic 
contamination from coal dust.
  This is environmental injustice, Mr. Chairman. My colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle will claim EPA is killing jobs, and I disagree. 
What EPA is doing is protecting the people of Appalachia from exposure 
to toxic chemicals that are harming them.
  We must put a stop to the dangerous practice of mountaintop removal 
mining, and I'm the lead sponsor of the Clean Water Protection Act, 
which would do just that.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this harmful legislation.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, there is no war on coal. If coal is 
not able to compete with cheaper natural gas, that's not the 
government's fault. That's the market. That's the way it works. Do we 
blame the government for the failure of typewriter manufacturers to 
stay in business because they've been replaced by computers?
  Coal is not going to go out of business.
  The President said in his Statement of Administration Policy:

       To be clear, the administration believes that coal is and 
     will remain an important part of our energy mix for decades 
     to come. For that reason, since 2009, the administration has 
     committed nearly $6 billion in advanced coal research, 
     development and deployment and continues to work with 
     industry on important efforts to demonstrate advanced coal 
     technologies.

  Let me just tell you what the American Heart Association, the 
American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, Asthma 
and Allergy Foundation of America, Health Care Without Harm, National 
Association of County and City Health Officials, Physicians for Social 
Responsibility, and Trust for America's Health say. They say:

       With such dramatic consequences for public health and 
     enormous costs from air-pollution-related illnesses, we urge 
     you to stand up to the pressure of big polluters and reject 
     H.R. 3409 for what it is, a war on lungs.

  That has no place at the top of Congress's legislative agenda.
  Coal has had a pretty good deal. They've never had to carry the full 
cost of burning coal because they have never had to pay for the 
external consequences to human health and the environment.
  But their failure in the market is because of lower competition.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  America would not be where it is today economically without the use 
of coal. I think all of us recognize that.
  I would like to just read a couple of statements from recent court 
decisions about EPA.
  The court called EPA's rationale magical thinking and its stunning 
power for an agency to arrogate to itself. It says, EPA acted 
arbitrarily and capriciously and in excess of its statutory authority.
  The President says different things at different times. When he was a 
candidate last time, he said that he would bankrupt the coal industry. 
When he's a candidate today, he says he supports the coal industry. But 
his administration, through the EPA, shows clearly that they oppose 
coal.
  The proposed greenhouse gas regulations, if finalized, would prohibit 
the building of a coal-powered plant in America.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 3409, the Coal Miner Employment and 
Domestic Infrastructure Protection Act. Almost four decades ago, when 
Congress enacted the Clean Water Act, Congress established a system of 
cooperative federalism by making the Federal Environmental Protection 
Agency, the EPA, and the States partners in regulating the Nation's 
water quality and allocated the primary responsibilities for dealing 
with the day-to-day

[[Page 14552]]

water pollution control matters to the States.
  For most of these almost-four decades, this system of cooperative 
federalism between the EPA and the States has worked quite well. 
However, in recent years, the EPA has begun to use questionable tactics 
to usurp the States' role under the Clean Water Act in setting water 
quality standards and to invalidate legally issued permits by the 
States.
  The EPA has decided to get involved in the implementation of State 
standards, second-guessing States with respect to how standards are to 
be implemented and even second-guessing EPA's own prior determinations 
that a State standard meets the minimum requirements of the Clean Water 
Act.
  The EPA also has inserted itself into the States' and the Army Corps 
of Engineers' permit issuance decision and is second-guessing States' 
and other agencies' permitting decisions.
  EPA's actions increasingly are amounting to bullying the States and 
are unprecedented.
  Title V of H.R. 3409 is the text of H.R. 2018, a bill that has 
already been approved by the House of Representatives overwhelmingly in 
a bipartisan vote. Title V of H.R. 3409 will clarify and restore the 
long-standing balance that has existed between the States and the EPA 
as co-regulators under the Clean Water Act and preserve the authority 
of the States to make determinations relating to their water quality 
standards and permitting.
  The language in title V was carefully and narrowly crafted to 
preserve the authority of States to make decisions about their own 
water quality standards and permits without undue interference or 
second-guessing from the EPA bureaucrats in Washington with little or 
no knowledge of local water quality conditions.
  Title V reins in EPA from unilaterally issuing a revised or new water 
quality standard for a pollutant whenever a State has adopted, and EPA 
already approved, a water quality standard for that pollutant.
  Title V restricts the EPA from withdrawing its previous approval of a 
State's NPDES water quality permitting program, or from limiting 
Federal financial assistance for a State water quality permitting 
program on the basis that the EPA disagrees with that State.
  Further, title V restricts the EPA from objecting to NPDES permits 
issued by a State. Moreover, title V clarifies that the EPA can veto an 
Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act section 404 permitting decision 
when the State concurs with the veto.
  These limitations apply only in situations where the EPA is 
attempting to contradict and unilaterally force its own one-size-fits-
all Federal policies on a State's water quality program.
  By limiting such overreaching by the EPA, title V in no way affects 
EPA's proper role in reviewing States' permits and standards and 
coordinating pollution control efforts between the States.

                              {time}  1810

  The EPA just has to return to a more collaborative role it has long 
played as the overseer of the State's implementation of the Clean Water 
Act.
  Detractors of this legislation claim that the bill only intends to 
disrupt the complementary roles of EPA and the States under the Clean 
Water Act, and eliminate EPA's ability to protect water quality and 
public health in downstream States from actions in upstream States.
  In reality, these detractors want to centralize power in the Federal 
Government so it can dominate water quality regulation in the States. 
Implicit in their message is that they do not trust the States in 
protecting the quality of their waters and the health of their 
citizens.
  Title V of H.R. 3409 returns the balance, certainty, and cooperation 
between States and the Federal Government in regard to the environment 
that our economy, job creators, and permit holders have been begging 
for.
  I urge passage of H.R. 3409 and reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in support of the Stop the War on Coal Act, or as I prefer to 
call it, the ``Defense of Coal Miners Jobs Act.''
  It has already been made clear on this floor that America's coal 
industry is under siege. Coal companies themselves have been very 
upfront about the chief source of their troubles, their lost revenues, 
mine closures, and layoffs. According to coal company officials and 
their own corporate financial statements, the biggest factor negatively 
affecting coal of late has been economic--involving declining demand in 
metallurgical coal, softness in the thermal coal market, a slowdown in 
the worldwide economy, milder than expected weather, and the resulting 
growth in coal stockpiles--all, of course, amplified by the low cost of 
natural gas. But when these factors began to evolve, already darkly 
looming over coal were the ever-tightening constrictions of the Clean 
Water Act--that regulatory perpetual motion machine from which rule 
after rule has rolled out with no regard for the condition of the 
economy or the effect those regulations would have on the livelihoods 
of American families.
  Meanwhile, long-running legal skirmishes--lawsuit on top of lawsuit--
challenging coal mine permitting in my home State had, for decades, 
unfairly and inhumanely left coal miners and their families constantly 
looking over their shoulders, waiting to be told that their mine was 
shutting down and their paychecks were stopping.
  And then along came the current EPA leadership and what may be the 
most flagrantly offensive tactic aimed squarely at undoing coal. This 
agency has singled out what I believe it saw as a politically 
expendable region of the country and imposed a wholly new permitting 
regime.
  This EPA has run roughshod over my State and others in central 
Appalachia to impose its own ideological agenda. It usurped the legal 
authorities of other Federal agencies. It brazenly misused and abused 
its regulatory powers to put a stranglehold on coal mine permitting in 
these States. This is not just my assessment; this is the assessment of 
the courts, which found:

       The EPA has overstepped its statutory authority under the 
     Clean Water Act and infringed on the authority afforded by 
     law to the States.

  I know quite possibly better than anyone else on this floor today how 
the regulatory arm of the government can wreak havoc on the people we 
represent. I know because the real front lines of this war are not here 
in Washington; they run through the hills and hollows of southern West 
Virginia, throughout our coal fields, through our very vein. The true 
soldiers in this war are our coal miners, who simply want to do their 
jobs. They want to earn an honest living and decent benefits for 
themselves and their families.
  Now, I've been proud to stand in this body for over three decades, to 
stand in the trenches and fight with our coal miners, and I'm not about 
to break ranks with them one iota. In defense of our coal miners, along 
with Chairman Mica of our Transportation Committee and myself, we 
drafted H.R. 2018, the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act, which is 
a key part of this bill we consider today, as Chairman Gibbs knows well 
and has been helpful with as well.
  I have, as well, supported the other measures that comprise this 
legislation when they passed the House as stand-alone bills, with the 
exception of the base bill to which they have been attached, as it has 
not been considered on the floor on its own.
  I stand here now on this floor in support of this bill to once again 
defend our coal miners and their families in my State of West Virginia. 
Coal miners have risen up against their government before--just look at 
the history. They've marched on Washington before; we've heard their 
voices. If this EPA continues to turn a blind eye to the law to impose 
its anti-coal views, if it continues to unlawfully mess with our miners 
to cut off their paychecks and cut short their dreams, then I have a 
message for the EPA from the folks back home: You've not heard the last 
from us. You've not heard the last at all.

[[Page 14553]]

  American workers want to work. Jobs are hard to come by these days. 
This government ought not to be a party to eliminating the ones that 
still exist. So in defense of our coal miners' jobs, I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, we have no more speakers. I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that the bottom line is 
that the coal industry, as do all industries, needs regulatory 
stability. As the only sitting Member of this body who was a conferee 
on the bill which became SMCRA--the Surface Mining Control and 
Reclamation Act--I well recall that our goal back in 1977, when that 
legislation passed, was to create a dovetailing between coal production 
and environmental protection. My own State of West Virginia at that 
time was--and still is--a leader in surface mine reclamation.
  Our industry was doing the job. Indeed, under SMCRA, we almost 
achieved that goal until recent years, when an activist EPA sought to 
usurp all authorities of other agencies--be it the Corps of Engineers 
or the Office of Surface Mining under the Department of the Interior. 
SMCRA should run the permitting process. Water quality permits should 
then follow, not vice versa.
  So, again, I urge support of this bill. And I point to how we have 
been able to do it in West Virginia--effectively reclaim our land, 
provide jobs for our people, and have an environmentally sound 
environment in which our people are proud and in which jobs are 
provided--and good-paying jobs, I might add--for the people of West 
Virginia and all of our Appalachian States.
  So I would urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I will conclude and yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  I want to thank my colleague from West Virginia, who is understanding 
of what's happening in the United States Environmental Protection 
Agency, the revocation of the permits.
  As a freshman here in Congress, I've been here not quite 2 years, and 
I have witnessed one of the most egregious things I have ever seen--I 
call it un-American. I think maybe I will just talk for a couple of 
minutes here and give the example of what happened with that, which 
just blew me away when I learned what happened.
  We had an operation in the State Mr. Rahall represents that went 
through 10 years of an environmental impact study--did everything they 
did, went beyond what they needed to do. In 2007, they were granted 
their permits and they started the operation up, the mining operation. 
In 2010, when this administration came into power, they revoked their 
permits. And I was arguing then that they didn't have the authority 
under the Clean Water Act to revoke the permit 3 years later, 
especially when there was no due reason, no cause.
  We held hearings on this in my committee. What we discovered is that 
the State of West Virginia EPA did not support those actions, and the 
Army Corps of Engineers stated that there were no problems at the 
operation, there were no permit violations. So this is the first time 
in American history, I believe, that a permit to be in business was 
revoked when there were no permit violations.

                              {time}  1820

  Now, this sets a very dangerous precedent because lots of entities, 
not just in the coal industry, but lots of entities have to have a 
permit from the government to be in business. And if the government can 
come in and take your permit for no true cause, real cause, not in 
violation of the permit, who's going to invest? How are we going to 
grow this economy?
  This is all about jobs and growing the economy. And so this is why 
it's so important that title V of this bill needs to be passed.
  I want to applaud Mr. Rahall and his support of that because he 
understands what the workers in his State are going through, and as we 
saw this week, all the thousands of layoffs of coal miners because 
there is a war on coal, and it's a war on our economy and it lessens 
our opportunity and, in essence, our freedoms.
  So I urge Members to support this bill, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3409, the 
``Stop the War on Coal Act.'' This legislation represents the wish list 
of our Nation's worst polluters. It would do nothing to make our 
country more energy independent, but it would strip Americans of basic 
clean air and clean water protections. Several provisions of the bill 
have previously been considered by the Energy and Commerce Committee, 
on which I serve, and they are no better than when they were first 
introduced. They would all have a devastating impact on human health 
and the environment.
  H.R. 3409 would eliminate tailpipe standards to reduce carbon 
pollution from model year 2017-2025 vehicles, bar EPA from requiring 
power plants and refineries to reduce carbon pollution, and undo 
requirements for power plants and refineries to disclose their carbon 
pollution. Those provisions would make our air dirtier without 
promoting job growth or energy independence.
  The bill would delay the enforcement of the Mercury and Air Toxics 
and Cross-State Air Pollution standards. The Mercury and Air Toxics 
Standard will prevent 4,500 cases of acute bronchitis, 12,000 emergency 
room visits, 120,000 cases of aggravated asthma and more than 6,800 
premature deaths annually. The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule will 
prevent 19,000 cases of acute bronchitis, 15,000 nonfatal heart 
attacks, 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and 34,000 deaths per 
year. Every year these regulations are delayed, over 40,000 preventable 
deaths will occur.
  In 2008, the Kingston coal ash disaster dumped over one billion 
gallons of coal ash into the Emory River, contaminating drinking water 
with arsenic, chromium, selenium, lead, and mercury. The EPA submitted 
two options for regulating of coal ash disposal to prevent a similar 
disaster in the future. H.R. 3409 would require a standard weaker than 
either recommendation made by the EPA. It would allow states to 
regulate coal ash landfills by the same standards we use for ordinary 
household garbage, subjecting millions of Americans to increased risk 
of cancer, neurological disorders, birth defects, reproductive failure, 
asthma, and other complications.
  This legislation would allow states to veto EPA water quality 
decisions even when a water source is heavily polluted. It would also 
restrict EPA from requiring improvements to state water quality 
standards when they fail to protect public health. Waterways cross 
state boundaries, and the effects of one state's lax regulations can 
have terrible consequences not just to their populations, but also to 
states downstream.
  We have a responsibility to our children and grandchildren to protect 
the air they breathe and the water they drink. Legislation like H.R. 
3409 puts the priorities of a few selfish corporate polluters ahead of 
hundreds of millions of Americans. I strongly oppose this bill and urge 
my colleagues to join me in voting against final passage.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chair, I rise today to oppose 
this bill because it's a mere political message--not a solution for the 
Nation's coal mining communities.
  Simply put: Jobs are being lost in the coalfields because natural gas 
is cheaper.
  Adopting this bill will do nothing to change those market forces.
  Likewise, this bill has nothing to do with protecting coal miners or 
ensuring they return home safely after their shift.
  It's been more than two years since 29 miners died in the Upper Big 
Branch mine. And for more than two years, families who lost a loved one 
in the mine have demanded congressional action.
  They want to ensure that the system does not let unscrupulous mine 
owners cover up unsafe conditions.
  All they want is to be sure that no other family will have to go 
through what they did.
  Well, more than two years and four investigative reports later, this 
Congress still has not acted.
  I've met plenty of miners in my day. They're smart enough to see 
through this stunt.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, and turn our 
attention to job creation and job safety.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, it's like we're stuck in some sort of time 
warp--a Groundhog Day to end all Groundhog Days.
  This House has voted 302 times to block action to address climate 
change, to halt efforts to reduce air and water pollution, to undermine 
protections for public lands and coastal areas, and to weaken the 
protection of the environment in other ways.

[[Page 14554]]

  But, not everybody's got their head in the sand. Richard Muller, a 
physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, and a prominent 
climate change skeptic, recently announced a change in his stance on 
the issue.
  ``Call me a converted skeptic,'' he wrote this July. ``Three years 
ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, 
threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, 
following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I 
concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of 
the rate of warming were correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans 
are almost entirely the cause.''
  The debate is over. Climate change is real. But this bill ignores 
sound science, and would actually speed up climate change rather than 
slow it down. This bill, despite sound science, tells us that we should 
decrease ozone standards nationally, and increase the risk of skin 
cancer.
  This bill, despite sound science, tells us that the new CAFE 
standards--supported by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the 
automobile industry, states and others--aren't worth the 2.2 million 
barrels of oil per day that would be saved; or worth the $1 per gallon 
consumer savings that would be achieved by 2025.
  Denying climate science, eliminating the EPA's ability to reduce 
carbon pollution, killing the high-paying, long-term green industry 
jobs we're working so hard to create, endangering public health by 
allowing coal ash and mountaintop mining removal materials to pollute 
our valleys and streams--these are not new topics to this Congress.
  These are all bills we've passed before, bills that have no hope in 
the Senate, no hope on the President's desk, and no hope to do any good 
for this country. What would be new is a solution-oriented policy 
discussion surrounding the extension of the Production Tax Credit, or 
PTC, which provides tax incentives for clean, renewable energy sources.
  I oppose today's bill, as I've opposed these devastating measures in 
the past, and will continue to fight to bring the PTC successfully 
across the finish line.
  If this so-called ``war on coal'' was really all about jobs, then 
we'd be leaving in place important rules like the Mercury Air Toxics 
Standard, which actually creates jobs, as do all of the rules that 
pertain to pollution controls--jobs in expert science industries.
  But we've become so focused on repeal, repeal, repeal, that we fail 
to listen to utility and energy industry experts who tell us that their 
bottom line is being impacted by this fervor to eliminate rules and 
regulations for fair play.
  We fail to listen to nearly 100 prominent economists--including Nobel 
Prize winners Joseph Stiglitz, Kenneth Arrow and Robert Solow--who tell 
us we've got the tools of job creation at hand.
  ``The Antiquities Act of 1906,'' these economic leaders wrote in a 
letter to the President last fall, ``would establish new national parks 
and monuments that can be one of the quickest ways to spur local hiring 
and build productive communities.''
  When the Antiquities Act of 1906 was established, Teddy Roosevelt was 
fighting with Congress over the importance of preserving the Grand 
Canyon as a national park.
  Way back when, the fight was whether to preserve the canyon or mine 
it for zinc, copper, asbestos and the like. Sounds a lot like today. A 
similar threat loomed over the Canyons this year, where international 
and domestic mining companies were clamoring for the rights to extract 
uranium from the nearby national forest.
  That was, until the President and Secretary Salazar instated a plan 
to ban new uranium and other mining claims on 1 million acres of 
federal lands bordering the Grand Canyon for the next 20 years. It is 
my humble estimation that President Roosevelt would approve these 
efforts, and so do I.
  ``We regard attic temples and Roman triumphal arches and Gothic 
cathedrals as a priceless value,'' Roosevelt wrote. ``But we are, as a 
whole, still in that low state of civilization where we do not 
understand that it is also vandalism wantonly--to destroy or to permit 
the destruction of what is beautiful in nature, whether it be a cliff 
or forest, or a species of mammal or bird.''
  Mountaintop mining, ocean acidification, epidemic rates of asthma--
this destruction of nature is economic destruction at best, and 
vandalism at worst. Land, water, air--our economy, our lives--they're 
all at stake today.
  I oppose this bill, I oppose this sentiment to cast aside rules and 
laws that preserve and protect, and I ask my colleagues to join me in 
the fight for green, clean energy.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chair, the definition of insanity is doing the same 
thing over and over again and expecting a different result each time. 
We have voted over 30 times to repeal the health care law. We have 
already voted on a number of provisions in the bill before us. Each 
time the Republican majority has forced through legislation with little 
to no bipartisan support and each time the Senate has refused to 
consider any one of those bills.
  Where are the jobs bills? Where are the new ideas from the Republican 
majority? How much time have we wasted this Congress on legislation 
that will never be considered by the Senate and would never be signed 
by the President?
  A partisan agenda is not what this country needs; what we need are 
investments in innovative technologies and sources of energy so America 
does not fall further behind countries such as China, Korea, Germany, 
and others who are subsidizing innovative energy technology.
  This bill and the bills we've already voted on this package are 
simply veto bait that does nothing to help working families, invest in 
innovative technology, or boost our manufacturing industry.
  The majority of the bill before us today deals with the Clean Air 
Act. In passing the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, which a number of 
my Republican colleagues in this House cosponsored, the Energy and 
Commerce Committee held over 70 hearings during a 10 year period and 21 
more during the 101st Congress. A total of seven House Committees 
participated in the Conference Committee. My point in saying all of 
this is that any changes to the Clean Air Act must include vigorous 
debate, not just with the people we agree with, but also those we 
disagree with. It must also include careful analysis of the Clean Air 
Act and what problems it creates and what this Committee and Congress 
should do about these problems. To my colleagues I would say if there 
is a problem, we should use the limited time we have to address the 
question of what are the problems and what are the alternatives or 
solutions.
  Just because members disagree with some of the actions taken by the 
EPA recently doesn't mean we need to defund and dismantle the EPA. As I 
have said a number of times, the Clean Air Act alone has reduced key 
pollutants by 60 percent since 1970 while at the same time the economy 
grew by over 200 percent. We can maintain a healthful environment while 
creating jobs and growing businesses without going back to the days of 
un-drinkable water and unbreathable air.
  We cannot simply be the House of ``no.'' We can and we must do better 
for the sake of our country. I must ask my Republican colleagues, is 
your priority this Congress to build partisan talking points or build a 
stronger American economy that can compete in the global economy of the 
21st century? I hope it is the latter because I know I was elected to 
do the work of the people and I hope my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle will start doing the same.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 3409, the 
Stop the War on Coal Act of 2012. Across multiple federal government 
agencies, there is a regulatory assault underway against coal. The War 
on Coal has focused both on the production of coal and on the use of 
coal by electric utilities. The regulatory actions of the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal government agencies are 
picking winners and losers in the energy industry by propping up 
companies like Solyndra while purposefully making it harder for coal 
producers to operate.
  The Stop the War on Coal Act returns climate policy to Congress, 
where it belongs in the hands of elected representatives who are 
subject to the will of the people. Americans want environmental 
policies that are fairly balanced against economic considerations such 
as the need for jobs and low cost electricity. These balancing 
decisions are best made in Congress. Federal agencies need to 
understand that the absence of a congressional authorization is not a 
green light for the agency to pursue whatever policy it wishes.
  I want to be clear that I support an all of the above energy policy.
  I believe that coal, natural gas, oil, nuclear, wind, solar, biomass, 
and geothermal energy sources all have a role to play in our national 
energy portfolio. There is no question, however, that electricity from 
coal and natural gas is cheaper and more abundant than electricity 
generated from renewable sources. A 2010 Heritage Foundation study 
found that the average family of four would pay on average $189 per 
month if it obtained 100 percent of its electricity from coal, but $504 
per month if the same family purchased 100 percent of its electricity 
from solar power.
  That's a difference of $315 per month. With 47 million Americans on 
Food Stamps and everything from the price of gas to the price of milk 
increasing, Americans are looking to save money in every way possible.

[[Page 14555]]

  Coal fired electricity simply makes economic sense for families in my 
state and across the country.
  Additionally, while 42 percent of U.S. electricity was generated from 
coal last year, and 25 percent came from natural gas--all renewable 
sources combined accounted for only 13 percent of the electric supply. 
It will be many years before renewable fuels are ready to shoulder the 
burden of providing the energy on which American's rely.
  There are three reasons why I stand on the floor this evening to 
discuss the importance of coal. First, I am here to stand up for the 
jobs of tens of thousands of West Virginians and hundreds of thousands 
of others across the country who are employed mining coal, transporting 
coal, generating electricity from coal or work in jobs that support the 
coal industry. Second, I am here to stand up for the families and 
businesses that will see increases in their electric bills as the 
administration imposes extreme regulations on both the production and 
utilization of coal. Finally, I am here to stand up for the reliability 
of our electric grid, which could be at risk over the long term if too 
much of our ability to generate electricity from coal is lost.
  My State and our neighbors in Appalachia have suffered significant 
job losses in the coal industry recently. Just yesterday, Alpha Natural 
Resources announced 1,200 layoffs companywide and hundreds of those job 
losses will occur in my state of West Virginia. Over 300 miners at 
Consol Energy lost their jobs when the Fola Mine in Clay County, in my 
congressional district was idled earlier this summer. Arch Coal laid 
off 750 miners earlier this summer across West Virginia, Virginia, and 
Kentucky. Patriot Coal laid off 250 miners last week and the company 
filed for bankruptcy this summer. A local television station in my 
district tallied nearly 2,000 job losses in the mining industry in 
early August, and more layoffs have been announced since then.
  Besides layoffs by mining companies, job losses in related fields 
such as transportation usually accompany job losses in mines.
  There is more than one reason why job losses are occurring in the 
coal industry, and I understand that not all of the job losses that 
have occurred are attributable to over regulation. Natural gas prices 
are at historic lows and the price for metallurgical coal is softening. 
Nonetheless, the excessive regulatory burden placed on the coal 
industry is certainly part of the reason that jobs are being lost.
  I am pleased that the bill that the House will vote on this week 
includes the text of H.R. 1872, the Employment Protection Act, which I 
introduced in order to require the EPA to consider the impact that any 
new regulation, guidance, policy statement or permitting decision would 
have on jobs and the economy. All of us want clean air and clean water, 
but I believe that environmental regulations should be balanced with 
the need to maintain jobs and employment opportunities for workers in 
the mining industry.
  Under the Employment Protection Act, EPA would be required to have a 
public hearing in any state where a decision it makes would have more 
than a de minimis negative impact on jobs or economic activity. 
Therefore, before EPA can take any action that costs a state more than 
100 jobs or costs more than $1 million in economic activity, it would 
be required to host a public hearing in the impacted state and engage 
in a conversation with local residents about the costs and benefits of 
their regulatory action. Too often federal agencies that are separated 
from local communities lose sight of the fact that their decisions have 
real impacts on workers and their families. I drafted the Employment 
Protection Act with the idea of empowering local residents with respect 
to decisions that impact them. Certainly if the benefits of a 
regulatory decision outweigh the negative economic consequences of the 
decision, then EPA should be able to articulate that fact to the 
impacted members of the local community.
  I am also proud of the other provisions that compromise H.R. 3409.
  The Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act is critical legislation 
that will restore the balance between state and federal regulators when 
it comes to the issuance of permits under the Clean Water Act. It was 
clear when Congress enacted that Clean Water Act that states would have 
the ability to define water quality standards for pollutants, subject 
to approval from the EPA.
  Unfortunately, the federal regulators have attempted to supersede 
state regulators whenever possible.
  H.R. 3409 clarifies that EPA cannot issue a revised water quality 
standard that supersedes the approved state standard without the 
state's consent. The legislation also prevents the EPA from revoking 
certification of a state's Section 402 permitting program based on a 
disagreement with the state regarding a water quality standard that a 
state has adopted and EPA has approved, or the implementation of any 
federal guidance that directs a re-interpretation of the state's 
approved water quality standards.
  Perhaps most importantly, this bill prohibits the EPA from vetoing a 
Section 404 permit issued by the Army Corps of Engineers unless the 
state concurs with the veto.
  This addresses the issue created by the EPA when it sought to veto a 
permit issued to the Spruce Mine in West Virginia. Despite the fact 
that EPA never stated that the holder of the permit violated any of the 
permit's terms, the agency sought to take back a permit that had 
already been issued. This action came after a lengthy review process 
that led to the issuance of the permit.
  Operating a coal mine requires a significant capital investment--an 
investment that cannot be made if the Federal Government is able and 
willing to take back a permit that it has issued even when the 
perrnittee abides by the conditions of the permit and otherwise follows 
the law. A federal judge in Washington, DC has already held that EPA 
acted unlawfully in taking back the permit from the Spruce Mine, but 
that ruling is currently being appealed.
  The Stop the War on Coal Act makes it absolutely clear that no 404 
permit issued by the Corps of Engineers could be vetoed without consent 
of the affected state government.
  Jobs are at risk in West Virginia and across Appalachia because of 
the slow progress in obtaining required permits under Sections 404 and 
402 of the Clean Water Act. Much of the permitting backlog is the 
result of Enhanced Coordination Procedures implemented by the EPA and 
the Corps of Engineers that gave EPA an increased role in the 
permitting progress. In two court decisions, Federal courts found that 
these Enhanced Coordination Procedures violated the Clean Water Act. 
Specifically, the Court found that the EPA ``has a very limited role in 
the issuance of CWA permits and has only the authority to develop the 
404(b)(1) guidance with the Corps'' while the Corps is responsible for 
determining compliance.
  I strongly agree with the Court's interpretation of the existing 
provisions of the Clean Water Act. The Corps of Engineers is the 
permitting authority with respect to 404 permits. After a fair period 
for interagency comments, the Corps of Engineers should make a 
permitting decision--either denying the permit and allowing the entity 
seeking a permit to make modifications necessary to ensure proper 
environmental protection, or granting the permit and allowing mining to 
take place.
  Under the Enhanced Coordination Procedures, EPA assumed a role that 
goes far beyond what was contemplated in the Clean Water Act and led to 
many permits being placed in a holding pattern. Now that the District 
Court has ruled that the Enhanced Coordination Procedures are unlawful, 
it is my hope that the Corps of Engineers and state governments will be 
able to return to the traditional method of considering Clean Water Act 
permit applications without undue interference from the EPA. The 
legislation we are considering this week will go a long way in ensuring 
the fairness of the permitting process.


                        Stream Buffer Zone Rule

  The current Stream Buffer Zone Rule was put into effect in 2008, 
after roughly five years of work. In 2009, however, OSM sought to 
vacate 2008 rule and asked a federal court to reinstate the 1980s 
regulation. The court denied this request, and OSM has worked to 
rewrite the 2008 rule which remains in place. Information provided by a 
contractor employed by OSM stated that 7,000 jobs would be lost in the 
mining industry if OSM's preferred alternative regulation were put into 
effect. To date, OSM has not issued a new stream buffer rule. 
Unemployment has remained over 8 percent for 43 straight months and we 
cannot afford to lose thousands of coal jobs.
  I commend my colleague Bill Johnson from Ohio for drafting this 
section of the bill. The legislation would prohibit the Department of 
the Interior from issuing or approving any rule under SMCRA that would 
adversely impact employment in coal mines, cause a reduction in coal 
revenues received from production on federal lands, reduce the amount 
of coal available for domestic consumption or export, designate any 
area as unsuitable for surface mining or expose the federal government 
to liability for a regulatory taking of privately owned coal before the 
end of 2013.
  There is no reason to rush into any modification of the Stream Buffer 
Rule at the expense of jobs in the coal industry.


                              Cap and Tax

  The Stop the War on Coal Act also addresses the threat of EPA 
regulations on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from 
stationary sources. Congress has not enacted legislation that would 
create a cap and trade

[[Page 14556]]

system, a cap and tax system, or that would otherwise expressly permit 
the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide from stationary sources. Like Clean 
Water Act permitting, EPA's attempt to regulate carbon dioxide from 
stationary sources is another area where the agency has stepped beyond 
its boundaries and into the realm properly occupied by Congress.
  I support efforts to develop Carbon Capture and Storage technologies 
and believe that they will allow coal to be cleaner in the future. Any 
effort to require CCS technology for new plants or existing plants, 
however, should come only when that technology is feasible economically 
and technologically--and only when Congress expressly authorizes such 
regulations. The Stop the War on Coal Act will make sure that elected 
representatives, rather than unelected bureaucrats, are in control of 
our climate policy.


                         Expensive Regulations

  The expense of EPA's regulations is dramatic. National Economic 
Research Associates examined the impact of four anti-coal regulations 
imposed by the EPA: the Cross State Air Pollution Rule, Utility MACT, 
Cooling Tower regulations, and regulation of coal combustion residuals. 
The study found that compliance with these regulations would cost $127 
billion by 2020, cause 183,000 net job losses each year, and lead to a 
cumulative loss of $190 billion in our country's gross domestic 
product. The NERA study found that the average American family would 
lose $270 per year in disposable income as a result of these four 
regulations.
  Our legislation addresses these expensive and burdensome regulations. 
The bill negates EPA's efforts to regulate coal combustion residuals as 
either a solid waste or a hazardous waste. Instead, this bill would 
ensure that states have the primary responsibility for regulating coal 
combustion residuals and encourages recycling. The use of coal ash in 
concrete for example, makes the concrete stronger and requires less 
cement--thereby reducing the use of water and energy.
  Under this bill, the Utility MACT rule must be reissued by EPA with 
an increased compliance period provided to utilities.
  EPA has estimated that the cost of complying with the Utility MACT 
rule would exceed $10 billion annually in 2016--more than the cost of 
all other Clean Air Act regulations on power plants combined. These 
costs will cause power plants to close, workers to lose their jobs, and 
families to pay higher utility bills.
  The CSAPR rule, already found unlawful by a panel of the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the DC Circuit, would be scrapped and replaced by the 
former Clean Air Interstate Rule, which better balanced environmental 
and economic considerations.
  The coal utility sector was well on its way to reducing emissions and 
investing in clean coal technologies without the administration's 
costly regulations. Between 1970 and 2011, emissions of sulfur dioxide, 
nitrogen oxide, and particulate matter from coal fired power plants 
were reduced by almost 90 percent according to EPA and EIA figures, 
while the use of coal increased substantially over the same period. 
Over that same period, the industry invested nearly $100 billion in 
emission control technologies.
  Rather than continuing this progress, the EPA's regulatory course has 
led numerous coal plants to close and will lead to still more coal 
plant retirements in years to come.
  According to EIA figures, plant operators expect to retire almost 27 
gigawatts of coal fired generation capacity between 2012 and 2016--
approximately 8.5 percent of the total 2011 capacity. The 9 gigawatt 
retirement in 2012 will be the largest single year reduction in coal 
fired capacity in history--but EIA projects that figure will be 
exceeded by a 10 gigawatt retirement of coal capacity in 2015. EIA 
estimates that more than 55 coal generating units will be taken off 
line in 2012 alone.
  Losing coal generation capacity is bad for the future reliability of 
our electrical grid as well as for the cost of electricity in the long 
term. Natural gas prices are low today. In the event natural gas prices 
were to increase--something that certainly has happened before--a lack 
of coal generation capacity would cause utility rates to skyrocket. My 
state has an abundance of natural gas as well as coal, and I want to 
see both of these fuels succeed and maintain their roles as the two 
largest generators of electricity in our country.
  Regulating coal out of our nation's energy portfolio is not a 
responsible long term course. It has been said that the United States 
is the Saudi Arabia of coal. Our country has 260 billion short tons of 
recoverable coal--enough to meet existing production levels for 222 
years.
  Low cost energy aids in job growth not only in the energy sector, but 
in manufacturing, transportation, and across our economy. The best way 
to provide low cost energy for businesses and for individuals for years 
to come is to avoid over regulating any single energy source, and 
instead allow both coal and natural gas to be produced and utilized as 
the free market dictates.
  Our current regulatory environment chooses winners and losers in the 
energy markets--and there is no question that this administration has 
chosen coal to be the biggest loser.
  The Stop the War on Coal Act takes responsible steps that allow both 
for environmental protection and economic protection. I encourage my 
colleagues to support the legislation this week.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the Coal Miner 
Employment and Domestic Energy Infrastructure Protection Act.
  Here on the last days of the 112th Session of Congress, we are 
wasting time debating a bill, whose constituents parts have already 
been approved by this body.
  We've already spent considerable House time debating all five titles 
of this bill.
  And all five titles were rejected by the Senate and have received a 
veto threat from the President.
  Over the past 19 months this body has cast more than 300 votes 
against the environment.
  Just as repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true, passing a bill in 
the House twice in the same session won't make it a law.
  When the history of this Congress is written, it will be known as the 
least productive Congress in a century, eclipsing even the infamous 
``Do Nothing'' Congress that President Harry Truman confronted more 
than 50 years ago.
  Rather than advance policies that would promote employment, help 
drought stricken farmers, even address the long-term solvency of 
Medicare, this House remains stuck on vilifying the Environmental 
Protection Agency and taking issue with its obligations under the law 
to protect the public's health.
  This week's announcement by Alpha Natural Resources that it plans to 
lay-off miners and scale back coal production by 16 million tons 
annually may fuel the argument that EPA is somehow responsible, but 
even Kevin Crutchfield, the company's chief executive officer, 
acknowledged that the principle cause was ``the result a difficult 
market in which power plants are switching to abundant, less expensive 
natural gas.''
  If natural gas is cheaper to burn than coal, then where is the 
legislation to ban its use?
  How about a war on natural gas?
  For decades the coal industry and utilities have been exempted from 
Clean Air Act regulations.
  It took court orders for previous administrations' inactions and the 
current administration commitment to protecting the public's health 
that led to today's regulatory climate.
  And, while hundreds of miners may lose their jobs because of cheaper 
natural gas and new Clean Air and Clean Water Act regulations, tens of 
thousands of Americans, this bill so callously disregards, will be 
saved from premature deaths, asthma attacks, emergency room visits and 
missed work and school days each year.
  I will vote to protect the lives of thousands of Americans over the 
few hundred who might lose their jobs.
  If the majority truly cares about the fate of these miners, then 
support a jobs bill that will allow them to rebuild America's 
infrastructure.
  This bill is wrong.
  It advances narrow, profit-based interests over the interests of 
everyday Americans.
  It presumes that a cleaner, healthier air and water must be 
subservient to the interests of keeping this nation's dirtiest power 
plants and the most environmentally destructive mining techniques free 
from regulation.
  My colleagues, it's a distorted set of priorities advanced by just a 
fraction of CEOs in the utility and mining industries who refuse to 
clean up their operations.
  We can have cleaner air and more jobs.
  And history provides us with proof it is possible.
  It's already happened, and I credit George Herbert Walker Bush with 
having the courage and foresight to put his signature on the Clean Air 
Act of 1990.
  He would be vilified by the current House majority if he signed that 
bill today.
  It's a sad commentary to see so many in this chamber beholden to an 
industry that prefers to invest in the political process rather than in 
saving lives by reducing its life-damaging practices.
  Few of my colleagues may realize that the coal consuming industries 
that have underwritten this assault on EPA had an opportunity to 
collaborate with the Obama administration on a regulatory framework.
  They were invited early on during the first year of the Obama 
administration to sit down and craft a compliance option.

[[Page 14557]]

  The administration had hoped to craft a deal similar to the historic 
deal it made with the nation's auto industry on fuel efficiency and 
tailpipe emissions.
  A National Journal article by Coral Davenport in the September 22, 
2011 issue referenced this meeting.
  But unlike the auto industry, the coal consuming industries refused 
to negotiate.
  Instead, and let me quote from the article, they:

       ``banded together with the Republican Party to strategize, 
     and the 2010 midterm elections offered the perfect 
     battleground. The companies invested heavily in campaigns to 
     elect tea party candidates crusading against the role of Big 
     Government. Industry groups (like the U.S. Chamber of 
     Commerce), tea party groups with deep ties to polluters (like 
     Americans for Prosperity), and so-called super PACs (like 
     Karl Rove's American Crossroads) spent record amounts to help 
     elect the new House Republican majority.

  My colleagues, this bill presents a false choice, peddled by an 
industry that refuses to clean up its act.
  This bill serves the interest of no one but a few CEOs who refuse to 
accept responsibility to the harm their operations have imposed on the 
rest of us.
  It needs to be defeated.
  I implore my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on Natural Resources, printed in the bill, it shall be in 
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 112-32. That amendment 
in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 3409

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembed,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Stop the 
     War on Coal Act of 2012''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; Table of contents.

TITLE I--LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY TO ISSUE REGULATIONS UNDER THE SURFACE 
               MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 1977

Sec. 101. Limitation on authority to issue regulations under the 
              Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977.

     TITLE II--NO GREENHOUSE GAS REGULATION UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT

Sec. 201. No regulation of emissions of greenhouse gases.
Sec. 202. Preserving one national standard for automobiles.

  TITLE III--TRANSPARENCY IN REGULATORY ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS ON NATION

Sec. 301. Committee for the Cumulative Analysis of Regulations that 
              Impact Energy and Manufacturing in the United States.
Sec. 302. Analyses.
Sec. 303. Reports; public comment.
Sec. 304. Additional provisions relating to certain rules.
Sec. 305. Consideration of feasibility and cost in establishing 
              national ambient air quality standards.

     TITLE IV--MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL OF COAL COMBUSTION RESIDUALS

Sec. 401. Management and disposal of coal combustion residuals.
Sec. 402. 2000 Regulatory determination.
Sec. 403. Technical assistance.
Sec. 404. Federal Power Act.

TITLE V--PRESERVING STATE AUTHORITY TO MAKE DETERMINATIONS RELATING TO 
                        WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

Sec. 501. State water quality standards.
Sec. 502. Permits for dredged or fill material.
Sec. 503. Deadlines for agency comments.
Sec. 504. Applicability of amendments.
Sec. 505. Reporting on harmful pollutants.
Sec. 506. Pipelines crossing streambeds.
Sec. 507. Impacts of EPA regulatory activity on employment and economic 
              activity.

TITLE I--LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY TO ISSUE REGULATIONS UNDER THE SURFACE 
               MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 1977

     SEC. 101. LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY TO ISSUE REGULATIONS UNDER 
                   THE SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT 
                   OF 1977.

       The Secretary of the Interior may not, before December 31, 
     2013, issue or approve any proposed or final regulation under 
     the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 
     U.S.C. 1201 et seq.) that would--
       (1) adversely impact employment in coal mines in the United 
     States;
       (2) cause a reduction in revenue received by the Federal 
     Government or any State, tribal, or local government, by 
     reducing through regulation the amount of coal in the United 
     States that is available for mining;
       (3) reduce the amount of coal available for domestic 
     consumption or for export;
       (4) designate any area as unsuitable for surface coal 
     mining and reclamation operations; or
       (5) expose the United States to liability for taking the 
     value of privately owned coal through regulation.

     TITLE II--NO GREENHOUSE GAS REGULATION UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT

     SEC. 201. NO REGULATION OF EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES.

       Title III of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 330. NO REGULATION OF EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES.

       ``(a) Definition.--In this section, the term `greenhouse 
     gas' means any of the following:
       ``(1) Water vapor.
       ``(2) Carbon dioxide.
       ``(3) Methane.
       ``(4) Nitrous oxide.
       ``(5) Sulfur hexafluoride.
       ``(6) Hydrofluorocarbons.
       ``(7) Perfluorocarbons.
       ``(8) Any other substance subject to, or proposed to be 
     subject to, regulation, action, or consideration under this 
     Act to address climate change.
       ``(b) Limitation on Agency Action.--
       ``(1) Limitation.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Administrator may not, under this 
     Act, promulgate any regulation concerning, take action 
     relating to, or take into consideration the emission of a 
     greenhouse gas to address climate change.
       ``(B) Air pollutant definition.--The definition of the term 
     `air pollutant' in section 302(g) does not include a 
     greenhouse gas. Notwithstanding the previous sentence, such 
     definition may include a greenhouse gas for purposes of 
     addressing concerns other than climate change.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) does not prohibit the 
     following:
       ``(A) Notwithstanding paragraph (4)(B), implementation and 
     enforcement of the rule entitled `Light-Duty Vehicle 
     Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel 
     Economy Standards' (as published at 75 Fed. Reg. 25324 (May 
     7, 2010) and without further revision) and implementation and 
     enforcement of the rule entitled `Greenhouse Gas Emissions 
     Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and 
     Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles' (as published at 76 Fed. 
     Reg. 57106 (September 15, 2011) and without further 
     revision).
       ``(B) Implementation and enforcement of section 211(o).
       ``(C) Statutorily authorized Federal research, development, 
     demonstration programs and voluntary programs addressing 
     climate change.
       ``(D) Implementation and enforcement of title VI to the 
     extent such implementation or enforcement only involves one 
     or more class I substances or class II substances (as such 
     terms are defined in section 601).
       ``(E) Implementation and enforcement of section 821 (42 
     U.S.C. 7651k note) of Public Law 101-549 (commonly referred 
     to as the `Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990').
       ``(3) Inapplicability of provisions.--Nothing listed in 
     paragraph (2) shall cause a greenhouse gas to be subject to 
     part C of title I (relating to prevention of significant 
     deterioration of air quality) or considered an air pollutant 
     for purposes of title V (relating to permits).
       ``(4) Certain prior agency actions.--The following rules 
     and actions (including any supplement or revision to such 
     rules and actions) are repealed and shall have no legal 
     effect:
       ``(A) `Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases', published 
     at 74 Fed. Reg. 56260 (October 30, 2009).
       ``(B) `Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for 
     Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act', 
     published at 74 Fed. Reg. 66496 (December 15, 2009).
       ``(C) `Reconsideration of Interpretation of Regulations 
     That Determine Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting 
     Programs', published at 75 Fed. Reg. 17004 (April 2, 2010) 
     and the memorandum from Stephen L. Johnson, Environmental 
     Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator, to EPA Regional 
     Administrators, concerning `EPA's Interpretation of 
     Regulations that Determine Pollutants Covered by Federal 
     Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit Program' 
     (December 18, 2008).
       ``(D) `Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V 
     Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule', published at 75 Fed. Reg. 
     31514 (June 3, 2010).
       ``(E) `Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under 
     the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to 
     Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Substantial 
     Inadequacy and SIP Call', published at 75 Fed. Reg. 77698 
     (December 13, 2010).
       ``(F) `Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under 
     the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to 
     Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Failure To 
     Submit State Implementation Plan Revisions Required for 
     Greenhouse Gases', published at 75 Fed. Reg. 81874 (December 
     29, 2010).

[[Page 14558]]

       ``(G) `Action to Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under 
     the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to 
     Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation 
     Plan', published at 75 Fed. Reg. 82246 (December 30, 2010).
       ``(H) `Action to Ensure Authority to Implement Title V 
     Permitting Programs Under the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule', 
     published at 75 Fed. Reg. 82254 (December 30, 2010).
       ``(I) `Determinations Concerning Need for Error Correction, 
     Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval, and Federal 
     Implementation Plan Regarding Texas Prevention of Significant 
     Deterioration Program', published at 75 Fed. Reg. 82430 
     (December 30, 2010).
       ``(J) `Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant 
     Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-
     Sources in State Implementation Plans', published at 75 Fed. 
     Reg. 82536 (December 30, 2010).
       ``(K) `Determinations Concerning Need for Error Correction, 
     Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval, and Federal 
     Implementation Plan Regarding Texas Prevention of Significant 
     Deterioration Program; Proposed Rule', published at 75 Fed. 
     Reg. 82365 (December 30, 2010).
       ``(L) Except for actions listed in paragraph (2), any other 
     Federal action under this Act occurring before the date of 
     enactment of this section that constitutes a stationary 
     source permitting requirement or an emissions standard for a 
     greenhouse gas to address climate change.
       ``(5) State action.--
       ``(A) No limitation.--This section does not limit or 
     otherwise affect the authority of a State to adopt, amend, 
     enforce, or repeal State laws and regulations pertaining to 
     the emission of a greenhouse gas.
       ``(B) Exception.--
       ``(i) Rule.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), any 
     provision described in clause (ii)--

       ``(I) is not federally enforceable;
       ``(II) is not deemed to be a part of Federal law; and
       ``(III) is deemed to be stricken from the plan described in 
     clause (ii)(I) or the program or permit described in clause 
     (ii)(II), as applicable.

       ``(ii) Provision defined.--For purposes of clause (i), the 
     term `provision' means any provision that--

       ``(I) is contained in a State implementation plan under 
     section 110 and authorizes or requires a limitation on, or 
     imposes a permit requirement for, the emission of a 
     greenhouse gas to address climate change; or
       ``(II) is part of an operating permit program under title 
     V, or a permit issued pursuant to title V, and authorizes or 
     requires a limitation on the emission of a greenhouse gas to 
     address climate change.

       ``(C) Action by administrator.--The Administrator may not 
     approve or make federally enforceable any provision described 
     in subparagraph (B)(ii).''.

     SEC. 202. PRESERVING ONE NATIONAL STANDARD FOR AUTOMOBILES.

       Section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7543) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) With respect to standards for emissions of greenhouse 
     gases (as defined in section 330) for model year 2017 or any 
     subsequent model year new motor vehicles and new motor 
     vehicle engines--
       ``(A) the Administrator may not waive application of 
     subsection (a); and
       ``(B) no waiver granted prior to the date of enactment of 
     this paragraph may be construed to waive the application of 
     subsection (a).''.

  TITLE III--TRANSPARENCY IN REGULATORY ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS ON NATION

     SEC. 301. COMMITTEE FOR THE CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS OF 
                   REGULATIONS THAT IMPACT ENERGY AND 
                   MANUFACTURING IN THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) Establishment.--The President shall establish a 
     committee to be known as the Committee for the Cumulative 
     Analysis of Regulations that Impact Energy and Manufacturing 
     in the United States (in this Act referred to as the 
     ``Committee'') to analyze and report on the cumulative and 
     incremental impacts of certain rules and actions of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency, in accordance with sections 
     302 and 303.
       (b) Members.--The Committee shall be composed of the 
     following officials (or their designees):
       (1) The Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief 
     Economist.
       (2) The Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Chief 
     Economist and the Under Secretary for International Trade.
       (3) The Secretary of Labor, acting through the Commissioner 
     of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
       (4) The Secretary of Energy, acting through the 
     Administrator of the Energy Information Administration.
       (5) The Secretary of the Treasury, acting through the 
     Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment and Energy of the 
     Department of the Treasury.
       (6) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency.
       (7) The Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors.
       (8) The Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission.
       (9) The Administrator of the Office of Information and 
     Regulatory Affairs.
       (10) The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
     Administration.
       (11) The Chairman of the United States International Trade 
     Commission, acting through the Office of Economics.
       (c) Chair.--The Secretary of Commerce shall serve as Chair 
     of the Committee. In carrying out the functions of the Chair, 
     the Secretary of Commerce shall consult with the members 
     serving on the Committee pursuant to paragraphs (5) and (11) 
     of subsection (b).
       (d) Consultation.--In conducting analyses under section 302 
     and preparing reports under section 303, the Committee shall 
     consult with, and consider pertinent reports issued by, the 
     Electric Reliability Organization certified under section 
     215(c) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824o(c)).
       (e) Termination.--The Committee shall terminate 60 days 
     after submitting its final report pursuant to section 303(c).

     SEC. 302. ANALYSES.

       (a) Scope.--The Committee shall conduct analyses, for each 
     of the calendar years 2016, 2020, and 2030, of the following:
       (1) The cumulative impact of covered rules that are 
     promulgated as final regulations on or before January 1, 
     2013, in combination with covered actions.
       (2) The cumulative impact of all covered rules (including 
     covered rules that have not been promulgated as final 
     regulations on or before January 1, 2013), in combination 
     with covered actions.
       (3) The incremental impact of each covered rule not 
     promulgated as a final regulation on or before January 1, 
     2013, relative to an analytic baseline representing the 
     results of the analysis conducted under paragraph (1).
       (b) Contents.--The Committee shall include in each analysis 
     conducted under this section the following:
       (1) Estimates of the impacts of the covered rules and 
     covered actions with regard to--
       (A) the global economic competitiveness of the United 
     States, particularly with respect to energy intensive and 
     trade sensitive industries;
       (B) other cumulative costs and cumulative benefits, 
     including evaluation through a general equilibrium model 
     approach;
       (C) any resulting change in national, State, and regional 
     electricity prices;
       (D) any resulting change in national, State, and regional 
     fuel prices;
       (E) the impact on national, State, and regional employment 
     during the 5-year period beginning on the date of enactment 
     of this Act, and also in the long term, including secondary 
     impacts associated with increased energy prices and facility 
     closures; and
       (F) the reliability and adequacy of bulk power supply in 
     the United States.
       (2) Discussion of key uncertainties and assumptions 
     associated with each estimate.
       (3) A sensitivity analysis.
       (4) Discussion, and where feasible an assessment, of the 
     cumulative impact of the covered rules and covered actions 
     on--
       (A) consumers;
       (B) small businesses;
       (C) regional economies;
       (D) State, local, and tribal governments;
       (E) low-income communities;
       (F) public health;
       (G) local and industry-specific labor markets; and
       (H) agriculture,

     as well as key uncertainties associated with each topic.
       (c) Methods.--In conducting analyses under this section, 
     the Committee shall use the best available methods, 
     consistent with guidance from the Office of Information and 
     Regulatory Affairs and the Office of Management and Budget 
     Circular A-4.
       (d) Data.--In conducting analyses under this section, the 
     Committee--
       (1) shall use the best data that are available to the 
     public or supplied to the Committee by its members, including 
     the most recent such data appropriate for this analysis 
     representing air quality, facility emissions, and installed 
     controls; and
       (2) is not required to create data or to use data that are 
     not readily accessible.
       (e) Covered Rules.--In this section, the term ``covered 
     rule'' means the following:
       (1) The following published rules (including any successor 
     or substantially similar rule):
       (A) The Clean Air Interstate Rule (as defined in section 
     304(a)(4)).
       (B) ``National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone'', 
     published at 73 Fed. Reg. 16436 (March 27, 2008).
       (C) ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
     Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and 
     Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters'', published at 76 
     Fed. Reg. 15608 (March 21, 2011).
       (D) ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
     Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and 
     Institutional Boilers'', published at 76 Fed. Reg. 15554 
     (March 21, 2011).
       (E) ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
     Pollutants from Coal- and Oil-fired Electric Utility Steam 
     Generating Units and Standards of Performance for Fossil-
     Fuel-Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-Commercial-
     Institutional, and Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional 
     Steam Generating Units'', published at 77 Fed. Reg. 9304 
     (February 16, 2012).
       (F) ``Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; 
     Identification and Listing of Special Wastes; Disposal of 
     Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities'', 
     published at 75 Fed. Reg. 35127 (June 21, 2010).

[[Page 14559]]

       (G) ``Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for 
     Sulfur Dioxide'', published at 75 Fed. Reg. 35520 (June 22, 
     2010).
       (H) ``Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 
     Nitrogen Dioxide'', published at 75 Fed. Reg. 6474 (February 
     9, 2010).
       (I) ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
     Pollutants from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry 
     and Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants'', 
     published at 75 Fed. Reg. 54970 (September 9, 2010).
       (2) The following additional rules or guidelines 
     promulgated on or after January 1, 2009:
       (A) Any rule or guideline promulgated under section 111(b) 
     or 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7411(b), 7411(d)) 
     to address climate change.
       (B) Any rule or guideline promulgated by the Administrator 
     of the Environmental Protection Agency, a State, a local 
     government, or a permitting agency under or as the result of 
     section 169A or 169B of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7491, 
     7492).
       (C) Any rule establishing or modifying a national ambient 
     air quality standard under section 109 of the Clean Air Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 7409).
       (D) Any rule addressing fuels under title II of the Clean 
     Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521 et seq.) as described in the Unified 
     Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions under 
     Regulatory Identification Number 2060-AQ86, or any 
     substantially similar rule, including any rule under section 
     211(v) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(v)).
       (f) Covered Actions.--In this section, the term ``covered 
     action'' means any action on or after January 1, 2009, by the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, a 
     State, a local government, or a permitting agency as a result 
     of the application of part C of title I (relating to 
     prevention of significant deterioration of air quality) or 
     title V (relating to permitting) of the Clean Air Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), if such application occurs with respect 
     to an air pollutant that is identified as a greenhouse gas in 
     ``Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for 
     Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act'', 
     published at 74 Fed. Reg. 66496 (December 15, 2009).

     SEC. 303. REPORTS; PUBLIC COMMENT.

       (a) Preliminary Report.--Not later than March 31, 2013, the 
     Committee shall make public and submit to the Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a 
     preliminary report containing the results of the analyses 
     conducted under section 302.
       (b) Public Comment Period.--The Committee shall accept 
     public comments regarding the preliminary report submitted 
     under subsection (a) for a period of 120 days after such 
     submission.
       (c) Final Report.--Not later than September 30, 2013, the 
     Committee shall submit to Congress a final report containing 
     the analyses conducted under section 302, including any 
     revisions to such analyses made as a result of public 
     comments, and a response to such comments.

     SEC. 304. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO CERTAIN RULES.

       (a) Cross-State Air Pollution Rule/Transport Rule.--
       (1) Earlier rules.--The rule entitled ``Federal 
     Implementation Plans: Interstate Transport of Fine 
     Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP 
     Approvals'', published at 76 Fed. Reg. 48208 (August 8, 
     2011), and any successor or substantially similar rule, shall 
     be of no force or effect, and shall be treated as though such 
     rule had never taken effect.
       (2) Continued applicability of clean air interstate rule.--
     In place of any rule described in paragraph (1), the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (in this 
     section referred to as the ``Administrator'') shall continue 
     to implement the Clean Air Interstate Rule.
       (3) Additional rulemakings.--
       (A) Issuance of new rules.--The Administrator--
       (i) shall not issue any proposed or final rule under 
     section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) or section 126 of the Clean Air 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), 7426) relating to 
     national ambient air quality standards for ozone or 
     particulate matter (including any modification of the Clean 
     Air Interstate Rule) before the date that is 3 years after 
     the date on which the Committee submits the final report 
     under section 303(c); and
       (ii) in issuing any rule described in clause (i), shall 
     base the rule on actual monitored (and not modeled) data and 
     shall, notwithstanding section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), allow the 
     trading of emissions allowances among entities covered by the 
     rule irrespective of the States in which such entities are 
     located.
       (B) Implementation schedule.--In promulgating any final 
     rule described in subparagraph (A)(i), the Administrator 
     shall establish a date for State implementation of the 
     standards established by such final rule that is not earlier 
     than 3 years after the date of publication of such final 
     rule.
       (4) Definition of clean air interstate rule.--For purposes 
     of this section, the term ``Clean Air Interstate Rule'' means 
     the Clean Air Interstate Rule and the rule establishing 
     Federal Implementation Plans for the Clean Air Interstate 
     Rule as promulgated and modified by the Administrator (70 
     Fed. Reg. 25162 (May 12, 2005), 71 Fed. Reg. 25288 (April 28, 
     2006), 72 Fed. Reg. 55657 (October 1, 2007), 72 Fed. Reg. 
     59190 (October 19, 2007), 72 Fed. Reg. 62338 (November 2, 
     2007), 74 Fed. Reg. 56721 (November 3, 2009)).
       (b) Steam Generating Unit Rules.--
       (1) Earlier rules.--The proposed rule entitled ``National 
     Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Coal- 
     and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and 
     Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Electric 
     Utility, Industrial-Commercial- Institutional, and Small 
     Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units'' 
     published at 76 Fed. Reg. 24976 (May 3, 2011), and any final 
     rule that is based on such proposed rule and is issued prior 
     to the date of the enactment of this Act, shall be of no 
     force and effect, and shall be treated as though such 
     proposed or final rule had never been issued. In conducting 
     analyses under section 302(a), the Committee shall analyze 
     the rule described in section 302(e)(1)(E) (including any 
     successor or substantially similar rule) as if the preceding 
     sentence did not apply to such rule.
       (2) Promulgation of final rules.--In place of the rules 
     described in paragraph (1), the Administrator shall--
       (A) issue regulations establishing national emission 
     standards for coal-and oil-fired electric utility steam 
     generating units under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7412) with respect to each hazardous air pollutant for 
     which the Administrator finds such regulations are 
     appropriate and necessary pursuant to subsection (n)(1)(A) of 
     such section;
       (B) issue regulations establishing standards of performance 
     for fossil-fuel-fired electric utility, industrial-
     commercial-institutional, and small industrial-commercial-
     institutional steam generating units under section 111 of the 
     Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 111); and
       (C) issue the final regulations required by subparagraphs 
     (A) and (B)--
       (i) after issuing proposed regulations under such 
     subparagraphs;
       (ii) after consideration of the final report submitted 
     under section 303(c); and
       (iii) not earlier than the date that is 12 months after the 
     date on which the Committee submits such report to the 
     Congress, or such later date as may be determined by the 
     Administrator.
       (3) Compliance provisions.--
       (A) Establishment of compliance dates.--In promulgating the 
     regulations under paragraph (2), the Administrator--
       (i) shall establish a date for compliance with the 
     standards and requirements under such regulations that is not 
     earlier than 5 years after the effective date of the 
     regulations; and
       (ii) in establishing a date for such compliance, shall take 
     into consideration--

       (I) the costs of achieving emissions reductions;
       (II) any non-air quality health and environmental impact 
     and energy requirements of the standards and requirements;
       (III) the feasibility of implementing the standards and 
     requirements, including the time needed to--

       (aa) obtain necessary permit approvals; and
       (bb) procure, install, and test control equipment;

       (IV) the availability of equipment, suppliers, and labor, 
     given the requirements of the regulations and other proposed 
     or finalized regulations; and
       (V) potential net employment impacts.

       (B) New sources.--With respect to the regulations 
     promulgated pursuant to paragraph (2)--
       (i) the date on which the Administrator proposes a 
     regulation pursuant to paragraph (2)(A) establishing an 
     emission standard under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7412) shall be treated as the date on which the 
     Administrator first proposes such a regulation for purposes 
     of applying the definition of a new source under section 
     112(a)(4) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(a)(4));
       (ii) the date on which the Administrator proposes a 
     regulation pursuant to paragraph (2)(B) establishing a 
     standard of performance under section 111 of the Clean Air 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 7411) shall be treated as the date on which 
     the Administrator proposes such a regulation for purposes of 
     applying the definition of a new source under section 
     111(a)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 7411(a)(2));
       (iii) for purposes of any emission standard or limitation 
     applicable to electric utility steam generating units, the 
     term ``new source'' means a stationary source for which a 
     preconstruction permit or other preconstruction approval 
     required under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) has 
     been issued after the effective date of such emissions 
     standard or limitation; and
       (iv) for purposes of clause (iii), the date of issuance of 
     a preconstruction permit or other preconstruction approval is 
     deemed to be the date on which such permit or approval is 
     issued to the applicant irrespective of any administrative or 
     judicial review occurring after such date.
       (C) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall 
     be construed to restrict or otherwise affect the provisions 
     of paragraphs (3)(B) and (4) of section 112(i) of the Clean 
     Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(i)).
       (4) Other provisions.--
       (A) Establishment of standards achievable in practice.--The 
     regulations promulgated pursuant to paragraph (2)(A) of this 
     section shall apply section 112(d)(3) of the Clean Air Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 7412(d)(3)) in accordance with the following:
       (i) New sources.--With respect to new sources:

       (I) The Administrator shall identify the best controlled 
     similar source for each source category or subcategory.
       (II) The best controlled similar source for a category or 
     subcategory shall be the single source that is determined by 
     the Administrator to be the best controlled, in the 
     aggregate, for all of the hazardous air pollutants for which 
     the

[[Page 14560]]

     Administrator intends to issue standards for such source 
     category or subcategory, under actual operating conditions, 
     taking into account the variability in actual source 
     performance, source design, fuels, controls, ability to 
     measure pollutant emissions, and operating conditions.

       (ii) Existing sources.--With respect to existing sources:

       (I) The Administrator shall identify one group of sources 
     that constitutes the best performing 12 percent of existing 
     sources for each source category or subcategory.
       (II) The group constituting the best performing 12 percent 
     of existing sources for a category or subcategory shall be 
     the single group that is determined by the Administrator to 
     be the best performing, in the aggregate, for all of the 
     hazardous air pollutants for which the Administrator intends 
     to issue standards for such source category or subcategory, 
     under actual operating conditions, taking into account the 
     variability in actual source performance, source design, 
     fuels, controls, ability to measure pollutant emissions, and 
     operating conditions.

       (B) Regulatory alternatives.--For the regulations 
     promulgated pursuant to paragraph (2) of this section, from 
     among the range of regulatory alternatives authorized under 
     the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), including work 
     practice standards under section 112(h) of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7412(h)), the Administrator shall impose the least 
     burdensome, consistent with the purposes of such Act and 
     Executive Order No. 13563 published at 76 Fed. Reg. 3821 
     (January 21, 2011).

     SEC. 305. CONSIDERATION OF FEASIBILITY AND COST IN 
                   ESTABLISHING NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY 
                   STANDARDS.

       In establishing any national primary or secondary ambient 
     air quality standard under section 109 of the Clean Air Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 7409), the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency shall take into consideration feasibility 
     and cost.

     TITLE IV--MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL OF COAL COMBUSTION RESIDUALS

     SEC. 401. MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL OF COAL COMBUSTION 
                   RESIDUALS.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 6941 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 4011. MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL OF COAL COMBUSTION 
                   RESIDUALS.

       ``(a) State Permit Programs for Coal Combustion 
     Residuals.--Each State may adopt and implement a coal 
     combustion residuals permit program.
       ``(b) State Actions.--
       ``(1) Notification.--Not later than 6 months after the date 
     of enactment of this section (except as provided by the 
     deadline identified under subsection (d)(3)(B)), the Governor 
     of each State shall notify the Administrator, in writing, 
     whether such State will adopt and implement a coal combustion 
     residuals permit program.
       ``(2) Certification.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 36 months after the date 
     of enactment of this section (except as provided in 
     subsections (f)(1)(A) and (f)(1)(C)), in the case of a State 
     that has notified the Administrator that it will implement a 
     coal combustion residuals permit program, the head of the 
     lead State agency responsible for implementing the coal 
     combustion residuals permit program shall submit to the 
     Administrator a certification that such coal combustion 
     residuals permit program meets the specifications described 
     in subsection (c).
       ``(B) Contents.--A certification submitted under this 
     paragraph shall include--
       ``(i) a letter identifying the lead State agency 
     responsible for implementing the coal combustion residuals 
     permit program, signed by the head of such agency;
       ``(ii) identification of any other State agencies involved 
     with the implementation of the coal combustion residuals 
     permit program;
       ``(iii) a narrative description that provides an 
     explanation of how the State will ensure that the coal 
     combustion residuals permit program meets the requirements of 
     this section, including a description of the State's--

       ``(I) process to inspect or otherwise determine compliance 
     with such permit program;
       ``(II) process to enforce the requirements of such permit 
     program;
       ``(III) public participation process for the promulgation, 
     amendment, or repeal of regulations for, and the issuance of 
     permits under, such permit program; and
       ``(IV) statutes, regulations, or policies pertaining to 
     public access to information, such as groundwater monitoring 
     data;

       ``(iv) a legal certification that the State has, at the 
     time of certification, fully effective statutes or 
     regulations necessary to implement a coal combustion 
     residuals permit program that meets the specifications 
     described in subsection (c); and
       ``(v) copies of State statutes and regulations described in 
     clause (iv).
       ``(C) Updates.--A State may update the certification as 
     needed to reflect changes to the coal combustion residuals 
     permit program.
       ``(3) Maintenance of 4005(c) or 3006 program.--In order to 
     adopt or implement a coal combustion residuals permit program 
     under this section (including pursuant to subsection (f)), 
     the State agency responsible for implementing a coal 
     combustion residuals permit program in a State shall maintain 
     an approved program under section 4005(c) or an authorized 
     program under section 3006.
       ``(c) Permit Program Specifications.--
       ``(1) Minimum requirements.--
       ``(A) In general.--A coal combustion residuals permit 
     program shall apply the revised criteria described in 
     paragraph (2) to owners or operators of structures, including 
     surface impoundments, that receive coal combustion residuals.
       ``(B) Structural integrity.--
       ``(i) Engineering certification.--A coal combustion 
     residuals permit program shall require that an independent 
     registered professional engineer certify that--

       ``(I) the design of structures is in accordance with 
     recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices 
     for containment of the maximum volume of coal combustion 
     residuals and liquids appropriate for the structure; and
       ``(II) the construction and maintenance of the structure 
     will ensure dam stability.

       ``(ii) Inspection.--A coal combustion residuals permit 
     program shall require that structures that are surface 
     impoundments be inspected not less than annually by an 
     independent registered professional engineer to assure that 
     the design, operation, and maintenance of the surface 
     impoundment is in accordance with recognized and generally 
     accepted good engineering practices for containment of the 
     maximum volume of coal combustion residuals and liquids which 
     can be impounded, so as to ensure dam stability.
       ``(iii) Deficiency.--

       ``(I) In general.--If the head of the agency responsible 
     for implementing the coal combustion residuals permit program 
     determines that a structure is deficient with respect to the 
     requirements in clauses (i) and (ii), the head of the agency 
     has the authority to require action to correct the deficiency 
     according to a schedule determined by the agency.
       ``(II) Uncorrected deficiencies.--If a deficiency is not 
     corrected according to the schedule, the head of the agency 
     has the authority to require that the structure close in 
     accordance with subsection (h).

       ``(C) Location.--Each structure that first receives coal 
     combustion residuals after the date of enactment of this 
     section shall be constructed with a base located a minimum of 
     2 feet above the upper limit of the water table, unless it is 
     demonstrated to the satisfaction of the agency responsible 
     for implementing the coal combustion residuals permit program 
     that--
       ``(i) the hydrogeologic characteristics of the structure 
     and surrounding land would preclude such a requirement; and
       ``(ii) the function and integrity of the liner system will 
     not be adversely impacted by contact with the water table.
       ``(D) Wind dispersal.--
       ``(i) In general.--The agency responsible for implementing 
     the coal combustion residuals permit program shall require 
     that owners or operators of structures address wind dispersal 
     of dust by requiring cover, or by wetting coal combustion 
     residuals with water to a moisture content that prevents wind 
     dispersal, facilitates compaction, and does not result in 
     free liquids.
       ``(ii) Alternative methods.--Subject to the review and 
     approval by the agency, owners or operators of structures may 
     propose alternative methods to address wind dispersal of dust 
     that will provide comparable or more effective control of 
     dust.
       ``(E) Permits.--The agency responsible for implementing the 
     coal combustion residuals permit program shall require that 
     the owner or operator of each structure that receives coal 
     combustion residuals after the date of enactment of this 
     section apply for and obtain a permit incorporating the 
     requirements of the coal combustion residuals permit program.
       ``(F) State notification and groundwater monitoring.--
       ``(i) Notification.--Not later than the date on which a 
     State submits a certification under subsection (b)(2), the 
     State shall notify owners or operators of structures within 
     the State of--

       ``(I) the obligation to apply for and obtain a permit under 
     subparagraph (E); and
       ``(II) the groundwater monitoring requirements applicable 
     to structures under paragraph (2)(A)(ii).

       ``(ii) Groundwater monitoring.--Not later than 1 year after 
     the date on which a State submits a certification under 
     subsection (b)(2), the State shall require the owner or 
     operator of each structure to comply with the groundwater 
     monitoring requirements under paragraph (2)(A)(ii).
       ``(G) Agency requirements.--Except for information 
     described in section 1905 of title 18, United States Code, 
     the agency responsible for implementing the coal combustion 
     residuals permit program shall ensure that--
       ``(i) documents for permit determinations are made 
     available for public review and comment under the public 
     participation process described in subsection 
     (b)(2)(B)(iii)(III);
       ``(ii) final determinations on permit applications are made 
     known to the public; and
       ``(iii) groundwater monitoring data collected under 
     paragraph (2) is publicly available.
       ``(H) Agency authority.--
       ``(i) In general.--The agency responsible for implementing 
     the coal combustion residuals permit program has the 
     authority to--

       ``(I) obtain information necessary to determine whether the 
     owner or operator of a structure is in compliance with the 
     coal combustion residuals permit program requirements of this 
     section;
       ``(II) conduct or require monitoring and testing to ensure 
     that structures are in compliance with the coal combustion 
     residuals permit program requirements of this section; and
       ``(III) enter, at reasonable times, any site or premise 
     subject to the coal combustion residuals permit program for 
     the purpose of inspecting structures and reviewing records 
     relevant to the operation and maintenance of structures.

[[Page 14561]]

       ``(ii) Monitoring and testing.--If monitoring or testing is 
     conducted under clause (i)(II) by or for the agency 
     responsible for implementing the coal combustion residuals 
     permit program, the agency shall, if requested, provide to 
     the owner or operator--

       ``(I) a written description of the monitoring or testing 
     completed;
       ``(II) at the time of sampling, a portion of each sample 
     equal in volume or weight to the portion retained by or for 
     the agency; and
       ``(III) a copy of the results of any analysis of samples 
     collected by or for the agency.

       ``(I) State authority.--A State implementing a coal 
     combustion residuals permit program has the authority to--
       ``(i) inspect structures; and
       ``(ii) implement and enforce the coal combustion residuals 
     permit program.
       ``(J) Requirements for surface impoundments that do not 
     meet certain criteria.--
       ``(i) In general.--In addition to the groundwater 
     monitoring and corrective action requirements described in 
     paragraph (2)(A)(ii), a coal combustion residuals permit 
     program shall require a surface impoundment that receives 
     coal combustion residuals after the date of enactment of this 
     section to--

       ``(I) comply with the requirements in clause (ii)(I)(aa) 
     and subclauses (II) through (IV) of clause (ii) if the 
     surface impoundment--

       ``(aa) does not--
       ``(AA) have a liner system described in section 258.40(b) 
     of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations; and
       ``(BB) meet the design criteria described in section 
     258.40(a)(1) of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations; and
       ``(bb) within 10 years after the date of enactment of this 
     section, is required under section 258.56(a) of title 40, 
     Code of Federal Regulations, to undergo an assessment of 
     corrective measures for any constituent identified in 
     paragraph (2)(A)(ii) for which assessment groundwater 
     monitoring is required; and

       ``(II) comply with the requirements in clause (ii)(I)(bb) 
     and subclauses (II) through (IV) of clause (ii) if the 
     surface impoundment--

       ``(aa) does not--
       ``(AA) have a liner system described in section 258.40(b) 
     of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations; and
       ``(BB) meet the design criteria described in section 
     258.40(a)(1) of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations; and
       ``(bb) as of the date of enactment of this section, is 
     subject to a State corrective action requirement.
       ``(ii) Requirements.--

       ``(I) Deadlines.--

       ``(aa) In general.--Except as provided in item (bb), 
     subclause (IV), and clause (iii), the groundwater protection 
     standard for structures identified in clause (i)(I) 
     established by the agency responsible for implementing the 
     coal combustion residuals permit program under section 
     258.55(h) or 258.55(i) of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, for any constituent for which corrective 
     measures are required shall be met--
       ``(AA) as soon as practicable at the relevant point of 
     compliance, as described in section 258.40(d) of title 40, 
     Code of Federal Regulations; and
       ``(BB) not later than 10 years after the date of enactment 
     of this section.
       ``(bb) Impoundments subject to state corrective action 
     requirements.--Except as provided in subclause (IV), the 
     groundwater protection standard for structures identified in 
     clause (i)(II) established by the agency responsible for 
     implementing the coal combustion residuals permit program 
     under section 258.55(h) or 258.55(i) of title 40, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, for any constituent for which corrective 
     measures are required shall be met--
       ``(AA) as soon as practicable at the relevant point of 
     compliance, as described in section 258.40(d) of title 40, 
     Code of Federal Regulations; and
       ``(BB) not later than 8 years after the date of enactment 
     of this section.

       ``(II) Closure.--If the deadlines under clause (I) are not 
     satisfied, the structure shall cease receiving coal 
     combustion residuals and initiate closure under subsection 
     (h).
       ``(III) Interim measures.--

       ``(aa) In general.--Except as provided in item (bb), not 
     later than 90 days after the date on which the assessment of 
     corrective measures is initiated, the owner or operator shall 
     implement interim measures, as necessary, under the factors 
     in section 258.58(a)(3) of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.
       ``(bb) Impoundments subject to state corrective action 
     requirements.--Item (aa) shall only apply to surface 
     impoundments subject to a State corrective action requirement 
     as of the date of enactment of this section if the owner or 
     operator has not implemented interim measures, as necessary, 
     under the factors in section 258.58(a)(3) of title 40, Code 
     of Federal Regulations.

       ``(IV) Extension of deadline.--

       ``(aa) In general.--Except as provided in item (bb), the 
     deadline for meeting a groundwater protection standard under 
     subclause (I) may be extended by the agency responsible for 
     implementing the coal combustion residuals permit program, 
     after opportunity for public notice and comment under the 
     public participation process described in subsection 
     (b)(2)(B)(iii)(III), based on--
       ``(AA) the effectiveness of any interim measures 
     implemented by the owner or operator of the facility under 
     section 258.58(a)(3) of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations;
       ``(BB) the level of progress demonstrated in meeting the 
     groundwater protection standard;
       ``(CC) the potential for other adverse human health or 
     environmental exposures attributable to the contamination 
     from the surface impoundment undergoing corrective action; 
     and
       ``(DD) the lack of available alternative management 
     capacity for the coal combustion residuals and related 
     materials managed in the impoundment at the facility at which 
     the impoundment is located if the owner or operator has used 
     best efforts, as necessary, to design, obtain any necessary 
     permits, finance, construct, and render operational the 
     alternative management capacity during the time period for 
     meeting a groundwater protection standard in subclause (I).
       ``(bb) Exception.--The deadlines under subclause (I) shall 
     not be extended if there has been contamination of public or 
     private drinking water systems attributable to a surface 
     impoundment undergoing corrective action, unless the 
     contamination has been addressed by providing a permanent 
     replacement water system.
       ``(iii) Subsequent closure.--

       ``(I) In general.--In addition to the groundwater 
     monitoring and corrective action requirements described in 
     paragraph (2)(A)(ii), a coal combustion residuals permit 
     program shall require a surface impoundment that receives 
     coal combustion residuals after the date of enactment of this 
     section to comply with the requirements in subclause (II) if 
     the surface impoundment--

       ``(aa) does not--
       ``(AA) have a liner system described in section 258.40(b) 
     of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations; and
       ``(BB) meet the design criteria described in section 
     258.40(a)(1) of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations;
       ``(bb) more than 10 years after the date of enactment of 
     this section, is required under section 258.56(a) of title 
     40, Code of Federal Regulations, to undergo an assessment of 
     corrective measures for any constituent identified in 
     paragraph (2)(A)(ii) for which assessment groundwater 
     monitoring is required; and
       ``(cc) is not subject to the requirements in clause (ii).

       ``(II) Requirements.--

       ``(aa) Closure.--The structures identified in subclause (I) 
     shall cease receiving coal combustion residuals and initiate 
     closure in accordance with subsection (h) after alternative 
     management capacity for the coal combustion residuals and 
     related materials managed in the impoundment at the facility 
     is available.
       ``(bb) Best efforts.--The alternative management capacity 
     shall be developed as soon as practicable with the owner or 
     operator using best efforts to design, obtain necessary 
     permits, finance, construct, and render operational the 
     alternative management capacity.
       ``(cc) Alternative management capacity plan.--The owner or 
     operator shall, in collaboration with the agency responsible 
     for implementing the coal combustion residuals permit 
     program, prepare a written plan that describes the steps 
     necessary to develop the alternative management capacity and 
     includes a schedule for completion.
       ``(dd) Public participation.--The plan described in item 
     (cc) shall be subject to public notice and comment under the 
     public participation process described in subsection 
     (b)(2)(B)(iii)(III).
       ``(2) Revised criteria.--The revised criteria described in 
     this paragraph are--
       ``(A) the revised criteria for design, groundwater 
     monitoring, corrective action, closure, and post-closure, for 
     structures, including--
       ``(i) for new structures, and lateral expansions of 
     existing structures, that first receive coal combustion 
     residuals after the date of enactment of this section, the 
     revised criteria regarding design requirements described in 
     section 258.40 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, 
     except that the leachate collection system requirements 
     described in section 258.40(a)(2) of title 40, Code of 
     Federal Regulations do not apply to structures that are 
     surface impoundments;
       ``(ii) for all structures that receive coal combustion 
     residuals after the date of enactment of this section, the 
     revised criteria regarding groundwater monitoring and 
     corrective action requirements described in subpart E of part 
     258 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, except that, 
     for the purposes of this paragraph, the revised criteria 
     shall also include--

       ``(I) for the purposes of detection monitoring, the 
     constituents boron, chloride, conductivity, fluoride, 
     mercury, pH, sulfate, sulfide, and total dissolved solids; 
     and
       ``(II) for the purposes of assessment monitoring, 
     establishing a groundwater protection standard, and 
     assessment of corrective measures, the constituents aluminum, 
     boron, chloride, fluoride, iron, manganese, molybdenum, pH, 
     sulfate, and total dissolved solids;

       ``(iii) for all structures that receive coal combustion 
     residuals after the date of enactment of this section, in a 
     manner consistent with subsection (h), the revised criteria 
     for closure described in subsections (a) through (c) and (h) 
     through (j) of section 258.60 of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations; and
       ``(iv) for all structures that receive coal combustion 
     residuals after the date of enactment of this section, the 
     revised criteria for post-closure care described in section 
     258.61 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, except for 
     the requirement described in subsection (a)(4) of that 
     section;
       ``(B) the revised criteria for location restrictions 
     described in--
       ``(i) for new structures, and lateral expansions of 
     existing structures, that first receive coal

[[Page 14562]]

     combustion residuals after the date of enactment of this 
     section, sections 258.11 through 258.15 of title 40, Code of 
     Federal Regulations; and
       ``(ii) for existing structures that receive coal combustion 
     residuals after the date of enactment of this section, 
     sections 258.11 and 258.15 of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations;
       ``(C) for all structures that receive coal combustion 
     residuals after the date of enactment of this section, the 
     revised criteria for air quality described in section 258.24 
     of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations;
       ``(D) for all structures that receive coal combustion 
     residuals after the date of enactment of this section, the 
     revised criteria for financial assurance described in subpart 
     G of part 258 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations;
       ``(E) for all structures that receive coal combustion 
     residuals after the date of enactment of this section, the 
     revised criteria for surface water described in section 
     258.27 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations;
       ``(F) for all structures that receive coal combustion 
     residuals after the date of enactment of this section, the 
     revised criteria for recordkeeping described in section 
     258.29 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations;
       ``(G) for landfills and other land-based units, other than 
     surface impoundments, that receive coal combustion residuals 
     after the date of enactment of this section, the revised 
     criteria for run-on and run-off control systems described in 
     section 258.26 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations; and
       ``(H) for surface impoundments that receive coal combustion 
     residuals after the date of enactment of this section, the 
     revised criteria for run-off control systems described in 
     section 258.26(a)(2) of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.
       ``(d) Written Notice and Opportunity to Remedy.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall provide to a 
     State written notice and an opportunity to remedy 
     deficiencies in accordance with paragraph (2) if at any time 
     the State--
       ``(A) does not satisfy the notification requirement under 
     subsection (b)(1);
       ``(B) has not submitted a certification under subsection 
     (b)(2);
       ``(C) does not satisfy the maintenance requirement under 
     subsection (b)(3);
       ``(D) is not implementing a coal combustion residuals 
     permit program that--
       ``(i) meets the specifications described in subsection (c); 
     or
       ``(ii)(I) is consistent with the certification under 
     subsection (b)(2)(B)(iii); and

       ``(II) maintains fully effective statutes or regulations 
     necessary to implement a coal combustion residuals permit 
     program; or

       ``(E) does not make available to the Administrator, within 
     90 days of a written request, specific information necessary 
     for the Administrator to ascertain whether the State has 
     complied with subparagraphs (A) through (D).
       ``(2) Request.--If the request described in paragraph 
     (1)(E) is made pursuant to a petition of the Administrator, 
     the Administrator shall only make the request if the 
     Administrator does not possess the information necessary to 
     ascertain whether the State has complied with subparagraphs 
     (A) through (D) of paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Contents of notice; deadline for response.--A notice 
     provided under this subsection shall--
       ``(A) include findings of the Administrator detailing any 
     applicable deficiencies in--
       ``(i) compliance by the State with the notification 
     requirement under subsection (b)(1);
       ``(ii) compliance by the State with the certification 
     requirement under subsection (b)(2);
       ``(iii) compliance by the State with the maintenance 
     requirement under subsection (b)(3);
       ``(iv) the State coal combustion residuals permit program 
     in meeting the specifications described in subsection (c); 
     and
       ``(v) compliance by the State with the request under 
     paragraph (1)(E); and
       ``(B) identify, in collaboration with the State, a 
     reasonable deadline, by which the State shall remedy the 
     deficiencies detailed under subparagraph (A), which shall 
     be--
       ``(i) in the case of a deficiency described in clauses (i) 
     through (iv) of subparagraph (A), not earlier than 180 days 
     after the date on which the State receives the notice; and
       ``(ii) in the case of a deficiency described in 
     subparagraph (A)(v), not later than 90 days after the date on 
     which the State receives the notice.
       ``(e) Implementation by Administrator.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall implement a coal 
     combustion residuals permit program for a State only if--
       ``(A) the Governor of the State notifies the Administrator 
     under subsection (b)(1) that the State will not adopt and 
     implement a permit program;
       ``(B) the State has received a notice under subsection (d) 
     and the Administrator determines, after providing a 30-day 
     period for notice and public comment, that the State has 
     failed, by the deadline identified in the notice under 
     subsection (d)(3)(B), to remedy the deficiencies detailed in 
     the notice under subsection (d)(3)(A); or
       ``(C) the State informs the Administrator, in writing, that 
     such State will no longer implement such a permit program.
       ``(2) Review.--A State may obtain a review of a 
     determination by the Administrator under this subsection as 
     if the determination was a final regulation for purposes of 
     section 7006.
       ``(3) Other structures.--For structures located on property 
     within the exterior boundaries of a State for which the State 
     does not have authority or jurisdiction to regulate, the 
     Administrator shall implement a coal combustion residuals 
     permit program only for those structures.
       ``(4) Requirements.--If the Administrator implements a coal 
     combustion residuals permit program for a State under 
     paragraph (1) or (3), the permit program shall consist of the 
     specifications described in subsection (c).
       ``(5) Enforcement.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the Administrator implements a coal 
     combustion residuals permit program for a State under 
     paragraph (1)--
       ``(i) the authorities referred to in section 4005(c)(2)(A) 
     shall apply with respect to coal combustion residuals and 
     structures for which the Administrator is implementing the 
     coal combustion residuals permit program; and
       ``(ii) the Administrator may use those authorities to 
     inspect, gather information, and enforce the requirements of 
     this section in the State.
       ``(B) Other structures.--If the Administrator implements a 
     coal combustion residuals permit program for a State under 
     paragraph (3)--
       ``(i) the authorities referred to in section 4005(c)(2)(A) 
     shall apply with respect to coal combustion residuals and 
     structures for which the Administrator is implementing the 
     coal combustion residuals permit program; and
       ``(ii) the Administrator may use those authorities to 
     inspect, gather information, and enforce the requirements of 
     this section for the structures for which the Administrator 
     is implementing the coal combustion residuals permit program.
       ``(f) State Control After Implementation by 
     Administrator.--
       ``(1) State control.--
       ``(A) New adoption and implementation by state.--For a 
     State for which the Administrator is implementing a coal 
     combustion residuals permit program under subsection 
     (e)(1)(A), the State may adopt and implement such a permit 
     program by--
       ``(i) notifying the Administrator that the State will adopt 
     and implement such a permit program;
       ``(ii) not later than 6 months after the date of such 
     notification, submitting to the Administrator a certification 
     under subsection (b)(2); and
       ``(iii) receiving from the Administrator--

       ``(I) a determination, after providing a 30-day period for 
     notice and public comment that the State coal combustion 
     residuals permit program meets the specifications described 
     in subsection (c); and
       ``(II) a timeline for transition of control of the coal 
     combustion residuals permit program.

       ``(B) Remedying deficient permit program.--For a State for 
     which the Administrator is implementing a coal combustion 
     residuals permit program under subsection (e)(1)(B), the 
     State may adopt and implement such a permit program by--
       ``(i) remedying only the deficiencies detailed in the 
     notice provided under subsection (d)(3)(A); and
       ``(ii) receiving from the Administrator--

       ``(I) a determination, after providing a 30-day period for 
     notice and public comment, that the deficiencies detailed in 
     such notice have been remedied; and
       ``(II) a timeline for transition of control of the coal 
     combustion residuals permit program.

       ``(C) Resumption of implementation by state.--For a State 
     for which the Administrator is implementing a coal combustion 
     residuals permit program under subsection (e)(1)(C), the 
     State may adopt and implement such a permit program by--
       ``(i) notifying the Administrator that the State will adopt 
     and implement such a permit program;
       ``(ii) not later than 6 months after the date of such 
     notification, submitting to the Administrator a certification 
     under subsection (b)(2); and
       ``(iii) receiving from the Administrator--

       ``(I) a determination, after providing a 30-day period for 
     notice and public comment, that the State coal combustion 
     residuals permit program meets the specifications described 
     in subsection (c); and
       ``(II) a timeline for transition of control of the coal 
     combustion residuals permit program.

       ``(2) Review of determination.--
       ``(A) Determination required.--The Administrator shall make 
     a determination under paragraph (1) not later than 90 days 
     after the date on which the State submits a certification 
     under paragraph (1)(A)(ii) or (1)(C)(ii), or notifies the 
     Administrator that the deficiencies have been remedied 
     pursuant to paragraph (1)(B)(i), as applicable.
       ``(B) Review.--A State may obtain a review of a 
     determination by the Administrator under paragraph (1) as if 
     such determination was a final regulation for purposes of 
     section 7006.
       ``(3) Implementation during transition.--
       ``(A) Effect on actions and orders.--Actions taken or 
     orders issued pursuant to a coal combustion residuals permit 
     program shall remain in effect if--
       ``(i) a State takes control of its coal combustion 
     residuals permit program from the Administrator under 
     paragraph (1); or
       ``(ii) the Administrator takes control of a coal combustion 
     residuals permit program from a State under subsection (e).
       ``(B) Change in requirements.--Subparagraph (A) shall apply 
     to such actions and orders until such time as the 
     Administrator or the head of the lead State agency 
     responsible for implementing the coal combustion residuals 
     permit program, as applicable--

[[Page 14563]]

       ``(i) implements changes to the requirements of the coal 
     combustion residuals permit program with respect to the basis 
     for the action or order; or
       ``(ii) certifies the completion of a corrective action that 
     is the subject of the action or order.
       ``(4) Single permit program.--If a State adopts and 
     implements a coal combustion residuals permit program under 
     this subsection, the Administrator shall cease to implement 
     the permit program implemented under subsection (e)(1) for 
     such State.
       ``(g) Effect on Determination Under 4005(c) or 3006.--The 
     Administrator shall not consider the implementation of a coal 
     combustion residuals permit program by the Administrator 
     under subsection (e) in making a determination of approval 
     for a permit program or other system of prior approval and 
     conditions under section 4005(c) or of authorization for a 
     program under section 3006.
       ``(h) Closure.--
       ``(1) In general.--If it is determined, pursuant to a coal 
     combustion residuals permit program, that a structure should 
     close, the time period and method for the closure of such 
     structure shall be set forth in a closure plan that 
     establishes a deadline for completion and that takes into 
     account the nature and the site-specific characteristics of 
     the structure to be closed.
       ``(2) Surface impoundment.--In the case of a surface 
     impoundment, the closure plan under paragraph (1) shall 
     require, at a minimum, the removal of liquid and the 
     stabilization of remaining waste, as necessary to support the 
     final cover.
       ``(i) Authority.--
       ``(1) State authority.--Nothing in this section shall 
     preclude or deny any right of any State to adopt or enforce 
     any regulation or requirement respecting coal combustion 
     residuals that is more stringent or broader in scope than a 
     regulation or requirement under this section.
       ``(2) Authority of the administrator.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subsections (d) 
     and (e) and section 6005, the Administrator shall, with 
     respect to the regulation of coal combustion residuals, defer 
     to the States pursuant to this section.
       ``(B) Imminent hazard.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed as affecting the authority of the Administrator 
     under section 7003 with respect to coal combustion residuals.
       ``(C) Enforcement assistance only upon request.--Upon 
     request from the head of a lead State agency that is 
     implementing a coal combustion residuals permit program, the 
     Administrator may provide to such State agency only the 
     enforcement assistance requested.
       ``(D) Concurrent enforcement.--Except as provided in 
     subparagraph (C), the Administrator shall not have concurrent 
     enforcement authority when a State is implementing a coal 
     combustion residuals permit program.
       ``(E) Other authority.--The Administrator shall not have 
     authority to finalize the proposed rule published at pages 
     35128 through 35264 of volume 75 of the Federal Register 
     (June 21, 2010).
       ``(3) Citizen suits.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to affect the authority of a person to commence a 
     civil action in accordance with section 7002.
       ``(j) Mine Reclamation Activities.--A coal combustion 
     residuals permit program implemented by the Administrator 
     under subsection (e) shall not apply to the utilization, 
     placement, and storage of coal combustion residuals at 
     surface mining and reclamation operations.
       ``(k) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Coal combustion residuals.--The term `coal combustion 
     residuals' means--
       ``(A) the solid wastes listed in section 3001(b)(3)(A)(i), 
     including recoverable materials from such wastes;
       ``(B) coal combustion wastes that are co-managed with 
     wastes produced in conjunction with the combustion of coal, 
     provided that such wastes are not segregated and disposed of 
     separately from the coal combustion wastes and comprise a 
     relatively small proportion of the total wastes being 
     disposed in the structure;
       ``(C) fluidized bed combustion wastes;
       ``(D) wastes from the co-burning of coal with non-hazardous 
     secondary materials, provided that coal makes up at least 50 
     percent of the total fuel burned; and
       ``(E) wastes from the co-burning of coal with materials 
     described in subparagraph (A) that are recovered from 
     monofills.
       ``(2) Coal combustion residuals permit program.--The term 
     `coal combustion residuals permit program' means all of the 
     authorities, activities, and procedures that comprise the 
     system of prior approval and conditions implemented by or for 
     a State to regulate the management and disposal of coal 
     combustion residuals.
       ``(3) Code of federal regulations.--The term `Code of 
     Federal Regulations' means the Code of Federal Regulations 
     (as in effect on the date of enactment of this section) or 
     any successor regulations.
       ``(4) Permit; prior approval and conditions.--The terms 
     `permit' and `prior approval and conditions' mean any 
     authorization, license, or equivalent control document that 
     incorporates the requirements and revised criteria described 
     in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (c), respectively.
       ``(5) Revised criteria.--The term `revised criteria' means 
     the criteria promulgated for municipal solid waste landfill 
     units under section 4004(a) and under section 1008(a)(3), as 
     revised under section 4010(c).
       ``(6) Structure.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the term `structure' means a landfill, surface impoundment, 
     or other land-based unit which may receive coal combustion 
     residuals.
       ``(B) De minimis receipt.--The term `structure' does not 
     include any land-based unit that receives only de minimis 
     quantities of coal combustion residuals if the presence of 
     coal combustion residuals is incidental to the material 
     managed in the unit.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents contained 
     in section 1001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 4010 the 
     following:

       ``Sec. 4011. Management and disposal of coal combustion 
           residuals.''.

     SEC. 402. 2000 REGULATORY DETERMINATION.

       Nothing in this title, or the amendments made by this 
     title, shall be construed to alter in any manner the 
     Environmental Protection Agency's regulatory determination 
     entitled ``Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes from 
     the Combustion of Fossil Fuels'', published at 65 Fed. Reg. 
     32214 (May 22, 2000), that the fossil fuel combustion wastes 
     addressed in that determination do not warrant regulation 
     under subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 
     6921 et seq.).

     SEC. 403. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

       Nothing in this title, or the amendments made by this 
     title, shall be construed to affect the authority of a State 
     to request, or the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency to provide, technical assistance under the 
     Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.).

     SEC. 404. FEDERAL POWER ACT.

       Nothing in this title, or the amendments made by this 
     title, shall be construed to affect the obligations of the 
     owner or operator of a structure (as defined in section 4011 
     of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as added by this title) 
     under section 215(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 
     824o(b)(1)).

TITLE V--PRESERVING STATE AUTHORITY TO MAKE DETERMINATIONS RELATING TO 
                        WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

     SEC. 501. STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS.

       (a) State Water Quality Standards.--Section 303(c)(4) of 
     the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 
     1313(c)(4)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses 
     (i) and (ii), respectively;
       (2) by striking ``(4)'' and inserting ``(4)(A)'';
       (3) by striking ``The Administrator shall promulgate'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(B) The Administrator shall promulgate''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A)(ii), the 
     Administrator may not promulgate a revised or new standard 
     for a pollutant in any case in which the State has submitted 
     to the Administrator and the Administrator has approved a 
     water quality standard for that pollutant, unless the State 
     concurs with the Administrator's determination that the 
     revised or new standard is necessary to meet the requirements 
     of this Act.''.
       (b) Federal Licenses and Permits.--Section 401(a) of such 
     Act (33 U.S.C. 1341(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(7) With respect to any discharge, if a State or 
     interstate agency having jurisdiction over the navigable 
     waters at the point where the discharge originates or will 
     originate determines under paragraph (1) that the discharge 
     will comply with the applicable provisions of sections 301, 
     302, 303, 306, and 307, the Administrator may not take any 
     action to supersede the determination.''.
       (c) State NPDES Permit Programs.--Section 402(c) of such 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1342(c)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(5) Limitation on authority of administrator to withdraw 
     approval of state programs.--The Administrator may not 
     withdraw approval of a State program under paragraph (3) or 
     (4), or limit Federal financial assistance for the State 
     program, on the basis that the Administrator disagrees with 
     the State regarding--
       ``(A) the implementation of any water quality standard that 
     has been adopted by the State and approved by the 
     Administrator under section 303(c); or
       ``(B) the implementation of any Federal guidance that 
     directs the interpretation of the State's water quality 
     standards.''.
       (d) Limitation on Authority of Administrator To Object to 
     Individual Permits.--Section 402(d) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 
     1342(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) The Administrator may not object under paragraph (2) 
     to the issuance of a permit by a State on the basis of--
       ``(A) the Administrator's interpretation of a water quality 
     standard that has been adopted by the State and approved by 
     the Administrator under section 303(c); or
       ``(B) the implementation of any Federal guidance that 
     directs the interpretation of the State's water quality 
     standards.''.

     SEC. 502. PERMITS FOR DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL.

       (a) Authority of EPA Administrator.--Section 404(c) of the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(c)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``(c)'' and inserting ``(c)(1)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any permit if the 
     State in which the discharge originates or will originate 
     does not concur with the Administrator's determination that 
     the discharge will result in an unacceptable adverse effect 
     as described in paragraph (1).''.

[[Page 14564]]

       (b) State Permit Programs.--The first sentence of section 
     404(g)(1) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(g)(1)) is amended by 
     striking ``The Governor of any State desiring to administer 
     its own individual and general permit program for the 
     discharge'' and inserting ``The Governor of any State 
     desiring to administer its own individual and general permit 
     program for some or all of the discharges''.

     SEC. 503. DEADLINES FOR AGENCY COMMENTS.

       Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1344) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (m) by striking ``ninetieth day'' and 
     inserting ``30th day (or the 60th day if additional time is 
     requested)''; and
       (2) in subsection (q)--
       (A) by striking ``(q)'' and inserting ``(q)(1)''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) The Administrator and the head of a department or 
     agency referred to in paragraph (1) shall each submit any 
     comments with respect to an application for a permit under 
     subsection (a) or (e) not later than the 30th day (or the 
     60th day if additional time is requested) after the date of 
     receipt of an application for a permit under that 
     subsection.''.

     SEC. 504. APPLICABILITY OF AMENDMENTS.

       The amendments made by this title shall apply to actions 
     taken on or after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     including actions taken with respect to permit applications 
     that are pending or revised or new standards that are being 
     promulgated as of such date of enactment.

     SEC. 505. REPORTING ON HARMFUL POLLUTANTS.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, and annually thereafter, the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency shall submit to Congress a 
     report on any increase or reduction in waterborne pathogenic 
     microorganisms (including protozoa, viruses, bacteria, and 
     parasites), toxic chemicals, or toxic metals (such as lead 
     and mercury) in waters regulated by a State under the 
     provisions of this title, including the amendments made by 
     this title.

     SEC. 506. PIPELINES CROSSING STREAMBEDS.

       None of the provisions of this title, including the 
     amendments made by this title, shall be construed to limit 
     the authority of the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, as in effect on the day before the date of 
     enactment of this Act, to regulate a pipeline that crosses a 
     streambed.

     SEC. 507. IMPACTS OF EPA REGULATORY ACTIVITY ON EMPLOYMENT 
                   AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITY.

       (a) Analysis of Impacts of Actions on Employment and 
     Economic Activity.--
       (1) Analysis.--Before taking a covered action, the 
     Administrator shall analyze the impact, disaggregated by 
     State, of the covered action on employment levels and 
     economic activity, including estimated job losses and 
     decreased economic activity.
       (2) Economic models.--
       (A) In general.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the 
     Administrator shall utilize the best available economic 
     models.
       (B) Annual gao report.--Not later than December 31st of 
     each year, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     submit to Congress a report on the economic models used by 
     the Administrator to carry out this subsection.
       (3) Availability of information.--With respect to any 
     covered action, the Administrator shall--
       (A) post the analysis under paragraph (1) as a link on the 
     main page of the public Internet Web site of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency; and
       (B) request that the Governor of any State experiencing 
     more than a de minimis negative impact post such analysis in 
     the Capitol of such State.
       (b) Public Hearings.--
       (1) In general.--If the Administrator concludes under 
     subsection (a)(1) that a covered action will have more than a 
     de minimis negative impact on employment levels or economic 
     activity in a State, the Administrator shall hold a public 
     hearing in each such State at least 30 days prior to the 
     effective date of the covered action.
       (2) Time, location, and selection.--A public hearing 
     required under paragraph (1) shall be held at a convenient 
     time and location for impacted residents. In selecting a 
     location for such a public hearing, the Administrator shall 
     give priority to locations in the State that will experience 
     the greatest number of job losses.
       (c) Notification.--If the Administrator concludes under 
     subsection (a)(1) that a covered action will have more than a 
     de minimis negative impact on employment levels or economic 
     activity in any State, the Administrator shall give notice of 
     such impact to the State's Congressional delegation, 
     Governor, and Legislature at least 45 days before the 
     effective date of the covered action.
       (d) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (2) Covered action.--The term ``covered action'' means any 
     of the following actions taken by the Administrator under the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.):
       (A) Issuing a regulation, policy statement, guidance, 
     response to a petition, or other requirement.
       (B) Implementing a new or substantially altered program.
       (3) More than a de minimis negative impact.--The term 
     ``more than a de minimis negative impact'' means the 
     following:
       (A) With respect to employment levels, a loss of more than 
     100 jobs. Any offsetting job gains that result from the 
     hypothetical creation of new jobs through new technologies or 
     government employment may not be used in the job loss 
     calculation.
       (B) With respect to economic activity, a decrease in 
     economic activity of more than $1,000,000 over any calendar 
     year. Any offsetting economic activity that results from the 
     hypothetical creation of new economic activity through new 
     technologies or government employment may not be used in the 
     economic activity calculation.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 112-
680. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered 
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.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Markey

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in House Report 112-680.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, strike the period at line 12 and insert a 
     semicolon, and after line 12 insert the following:
     unless it is found by the Secretary of Interior, in 
     consultation with Secretary of Health and Human Services, 
     that such a rule would reduce the prevalence of pulmonary 
     disease, lung cancer, or cardiovascular disease or reduce the 
     prevalence of birth defects or reproductive problems in 
     pregnant women or children.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 788, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  With just 1 more day left until Congress recesses until the election, 
the Republican majority has decided that, instead of dealing with real 
problems facing Americans by passing a jobs package dealing with the 
looming fiscal cliff or providing tax certainty to middle class 
families, we will instead debate a bill that deals with an imaginary 
war on coal, fabricated by Republicans in order to justify their real 
war on the environment, the most anti-environment Congress in history.
  In reality, this bill just represents a war on us. It's the 
Republicans in Congress making clear that their priority is not 
protecting the well-being of the American people. The Republican 
majority has already acted on four out of the five titles in this bill, 
and the Senate has rejected every single one of them. The President has 
vowed to veto every single one of them.
  The only new title that is presented is one aimed at preventing the 
administration from moving forward with a rule that does not yet even 
exist, that would limit coal mining companies from dumping tons of 
their toxic mining waste directly into streams and rivers.
  The ironic part is that, according to CBO, this bill won't even 
prevent the administration from doing that. But it does prevent the 
administration from undertaking any action that would ensure that 
mountaintop mining operations are safe for workers and safe for the 
health of those who live and work nearby.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to, at this point, reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Johnson), the author of title I of this legislation.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding.
  You know, it absolutely amazes me that our colleagues on the opposite

[[Page 14565]]

side of the aisle can honestly, and with a straight face, stand up and 
say that this Republican-led House has not put forth jobs bills. There 
have been 40 jobs bills sent to the Senate from this House already. 
This is another jobs bill that is prepared to be sent to the Senate.
  I want to also remind my colleague that the Stream Buffer Zone rule 
that we're talking about here today, it took 5 years to put that rule 
in place. The administration went after that rule with a vengeance, 
without even seeing what the rule would do in terms of providing the 
protections that they're so adamantly arguing about right now.
  Instead, they used an environmental lawsuit to go after the coal 
industry and to undermine job creators all across America, and it's 
driving up America's energy prices. It's irresponsible. It's wrong. 
This amendment is only meant to distract the public from the job-
killing policies of this administration.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts knows all too well that SMCRA was 
not written nor intended to deal with health issues. The gentleman's 
amendment would change the stated goal and reason for SMCRA completely 
and would duplicate laws and mandates that are already in the Federal 
code.
  The other side of the aisle also seems to think that they are the 
only Members of this body that are concerned about public health and 
the environment. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  I grew up on a two-wheel wagon rut mule farm, and I know the 
importance of having a clean and vibrant environment. I also have kids 
and grandkids, and I want to ensure that our generation leaves them 
with an environment healthier than the one our generation inherited; 
however, this legislation today is about balancing job creation and 
economic prosperity with sensible environmental regulations. This 
amendment does neither of those things, and I urge all of my colleagues 
to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  So the Republicans say that this legislation is all about creating 
jobs. They say that we will save money by passing this disastrous bill. 
But the numbers just don't add up.
  According to the Environmental Protection Agency, mountaintop mining 
has already buried nearly 2,000 miles of streams with mining waste that 
leaches dangerous heavy metals into that water. One study puts the cost 
of reclaiming a stream impacted by this type of mining at as much as 
$800 per linear foot.
  If we do a little arithmetic, $800 multiplied by 5,280 feet in 1 
mile, multiplied by the 2,000 miles of streams already buried, that's 
$8.5 billion. That's what it would cost to clean that up. And that's 
just to clean up the streams that have already been decimated.
  But that's not the only cost included in this provision. We also have 
the cost to health, the cost to children.
  Studies have shown that communities located near mountaintop mining 
sites have as much as a 42 percent increase in infants born with birth 
defects. These communities also have a 16 percent higher risk of giving 
birth to a child with low birth weight, a factor that is closely 
associated with fetal death, inhibited cognitive development, and 
chronic diseases later in life.
  And that's not all. Communities located near mountaintop mining sites 
also have significantly higher rates of lung disease, cardiovascular 
disease, pulmonary disease, and a higher likelihood that these diseases 
will kill them.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'd advise my friend from 
Massachusetts that we're prepared to close if he is prepared to close 
on his side.
  Mr. MARKEY. Could I inquire from the Chair how much time is remaining 
on either side?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Washington State has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  While it is impossible to put a dollar figure completely on the 
suffering that those families will feel, one study has put the public 
health burden from premature deaths in the Appalachian communities at 
$74 billion per year. Now, that's arithmetic that even Governor Romney 
would understand. In fact, when he was Governor of the great State of 
Massachusetts, he stood in front of a coal plant, and here's what he 
said. He said, ``I will not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people, 
and that plant kills people.''

                              {time}  1830

  My amendment is simple. It says, if the Secretary of the Interior is 
allowed to issue a rule that would protect pregnant women and children 
from adverse reproductive outcomes or birth defects or would reduce the 
prevalence of cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease or lung cancer, 
that that rule can go into effect.
  I urge all Members of this body to support this amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my 
time to the author of title I, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding me the 
balance of the time.
  It is mindboggling to sit here and listen to this. I've got to remind 
us again that we are talking about an administration that before they 
even came into office said they were going to bankrupt the coal 
industry. That's one promise that they have kept. It's an 
administration whose Vice President said in 2007 that coal is more 
dangerous than high fructose corn syrup and terrorists. That's the kind 
of reasoning that we are getting out of this administration.
  My colleague was quick to try and hold a math class here. Let's talk 
about a different set of numbers.
  Let's talk about the 7,000 direct jobs that are going to be cut--that 
are going to be lost--if this rule goes forward. Let's talk about the 
thousands of indirect jobs that are going to be lost as a result of 
this rule going forward. Let's talk about the 50 percent reduction in 
coal production across America when America is still dependent upon 
coal for the very energy that it needs to fuel the manufacturing that 
America does. Let's talk about those numbers if we want to talk about 
what it's going to do to America if this rule goes forward.
  Let's talk about the thousands of people who are going to be hurt 
when their families don't have jobs to go to. Let's talk about the 
checkbooks at the end of the month that don't balance because of 
increased, skyrocketing utility rates, and now Mom and Dad can't pay 
the bills, and they can't go buy a new pair of tennis shoes because 
they've got an electricity bill that's going off the charts.
  When we talk about something that's going to hurt the middle class, 
this rule is what will hurt the middle class. It's irresponsible. This 
amendment does nothing to move America forward. I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this amendment.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Bucshon

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 112-680.
  Mr. BUCSHON. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:


[[Page 14566]]

       At the end of title I (page 3, after line 12) add the 
     following:

     SEC. __. PUBLICATION OF SCIENTIFIC STUDIES FOR PROPOSED 
                   RULES.

       (a) Requirement.--Title VI of the Surface Mining Control 
     and Reclamation Act of 1977 (16 U.S.C. 1291 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:


         ``publication of scientific studies for proposed rules

       ``Sec. 722.  (a) Requirement.--The Secretary, or any other 
     Federal official proposing a rule under this Act, shall 
     publish with each rule proposed under this Act each 
     scientific study the Secretary or other official, 
     respectively, relied on in developing the rule.
       ``(b) Scientific Study Defined.--In this section the term 
     `scientific study' means a study that--
       ``(1) applies rigorous, systematic, and objective 
     methodology to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant 
     to the subject matter involved;
       ``(2) presents findings and makes claims that are 
     appropriate to, and supported by, the methods that have been 
     employed; and
       ``(3) includes, appropriate to the rule being proposed--
       ``(A) use of systematic, empirical methods that draw on 
     observation or experiment;
       ``(B) use of data analyses that are adequate to support the 
     general findings;
       ``(C) reliance on measurements or observational methods 
     that provide reliable and generalizable findings;
       ``(D) strong claims of causal relationships, only with 
     research designs that eliminate plausible competing 
     explanations for observed results, such as, but not limited 
     to, random-assignment experiments;
       ``(E) presentation of studies and methods in sufficient 
     detail and clarity to allow for replication or, at a minimum, 
     to offer the opportunity to build systematically on the 
     findings of the research;
       ``(F) acceptance by a peer-reviewed journal or critique by 
     a panel of independent experts through a comparably rigorous, 
     objective, and scientific review; and
       ``(G) consistency of findings across multiple studies or 
     sites to support the generality of results and 
     conclusions.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents at the end 
     of the first section of such Act is amended by adding at the 
     end of the items relating to such title the following:

``Sec. 722. Publication of scientific studies for proposed rules.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 788, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BUCSHON. Mr. Chairman, coal provides affordable domestic energy 
that supports millions of direct and indirect jobs. In my State of 
Indiana, 90 to 95 percent of all electrical power comes from coal. This 
keeps the costs of energy down, and it attracts millions of jobs to my 
State through our manufacturing industry.
  This amendment would require that the Secretary or any other Federal 
official proposing a rule under this act publish with each rule the 
scientific studies the Secretary or other official relied on in 
developing the rule. This amendment is simple, and it will ensure that 
rules being issued are based on valid scientific studies that can be 
peer reviewed and replicated.
  This amendment should be supported by everyone in this body who 
values sound science and who wants to ensure transparency with the 
rulemaking process. Federal agencies are promulgating more rules each 
year that control greater aspects of our personal and professional 
lives. Often these rules are pages long, instituted with little or no 
congressional input, and can have a devastating effect on job creation 
and our economy.
  It is important for all Federal agencies to provide to the public the 
science and research behind proposed rules. It enables the scientific 
community and the general public to scrutinize how unelected 
Washington, D.C., bureaucrats are writing rules that increase costs for 
businesses and hurt our economy.
  I have personally met with numerous government officials, such as 
those from the Mine Safety and Health Administration, and have 
discussed their rulemaking process. More than once, I have been told 
that proposed rules related to the coal industry are based on 
scientific studies and data--most recently, the underground coal mine 
dust regulation. I have asked to see these studies both in private 
meetings and in committee hearings, and I have never been provided with 
the scientific data that they say supports the new rule.
  As a scientist and medical doctor, nobody understands the importance 
of good science more than I. Whether it is in medicine or whether it 
relates to public policy, good science makes for good policies. It's 
important for the Members of this body and the American people to be 
able to review the science and the studies that contribute to Federal 
rulemaking and to know that every rule and regulation is based upon 
sound science.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, requiring that we 
have a transparent rulemaking process that allows every concerned 
American to review the science behind a proposed rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BUCSHON. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate the gentleman's amendment. I 
think it adds a great deal to this legislation. Too often, we overlook 
common sense, and that's precisely what the gentleman's amendment does, 
so I support his amendment.
  Mr. BUCSHON. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. I rise to claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I actually have no problem with the gentleman's amendment. If he 
wants to require the publication of scientific studies used to develop 
regulations, I am just fine with that. I'm sure he knows, of course, 
that this is already a Federal requirement, but I don't object to the 
redundancy of an amendment's passing that says they should do something 
that they do already.
  But I do want to take a moment to talk about the Republican war on 
science, because this bill that we are debating today is their battle 
plan. The essence of today's bill is that science and facts do not 
matter and that, when science and facts become inconvenient, we can 
just repeal them.
  Take the provision of this bill that legislatively overturns a 
scientific finding that greenhouse gas pollution is dangerous, which is 
a decision that was made based on 2 full years of work and on a 200-
page synthesis of major scientific assessments, including assessments 
performed by the U.S. Global Change Research Program and the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment Report. 
In fact, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington recently rejected 
challenges to EPA's scientific endangerment finding, saying that EPA 
used an ``ocean of evidence'' to support its decision that it was 
``unambiguously correct'' in its determination and that ``EPA is not 
required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches 
a scientific question.''
  Republicans decided that peer-reviewed science was inconvenient 
because that analysis was what started the pretend ``war on coal.'' So 
we have to vote again and again and again to eliminate all of that 
science.
  This bill tells EPA to ignore the science that air pollution causes 
lung disease and that mercury damages children's developing brains. In 
fact, it tells EPA, Don't even look at the science; look at the costs. 
If controlling air pollution is expensive, then we shouldn't do it even 
if it would save lives. It says, 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 and that 
no matter what EPA learns about how these materials find their way into 
our drinking water, EPA is not allowed to scientifically determine that 
material to be hazardous.
  This bill turns a blind eye to science. The only time Republicans 
value science is when science can be used as a weapon. When science can 
be used to delay regulations, when endless analysis can be used to 
create paralysis, the Republicans suddenly value science. The 
Republican majority doesn't like that every respected scientific entity 
over the last decade has

[[Page 14567]]

concluded that greenhouse gases cause climate change.
  Their solution: repeal the science.
  Republicans aren't happy that the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services has issued a report that finds that formaldehyde causes 
cancer. Sure, the World Health Organization already determined that 17 
years ago.

                              {time}  1840

  Their solution: We should study it again. We should allow a National 
Academy of Sciences review so that we can prevent the administration 
from taking any action to protect the public against dangerous 
formaldehyde. In fact, there has already been a rider to the health 
appropriations bill that does just that, while also stripping funding 
for any subsequent reports on cancer. It is a strategy taken right out 
of the American Chemical Council's playbook. It is act one of Big 
Coal's comedy of errors.
  We've seen it over and over again on the House floor: first deny the 
science; second, delay the regulations by legislating a new scientific 
study to review the first science the industry doesn't like; and third, 
deter efforts to protect the health and security of millions of 
Americans by requiring yet another third party to review the scientific 
study that was just legislated and postponing regulatory action until 
after that is complete.
  This bill isn't about the war on coal. It's about the Republicans' 
war on science. That's why we're out here. It continues unabated today.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUCSHON. May I inquire as to how much time I have?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BUCSHON. Mr. Chairman, my amendment addresses timing. Timing is 
important when it comes to this issue because the public needs to know 
and this Congress needs to know what the science is before the rule is 
finalized, not after the rule has already been essentially finalized 
and the public comment period has passed.
  I had direct experience with this recently with the coal dust 
regulation. After the rule was essentially finalized, I asked for the 
data myself and was denied the data claiming that there would be HIPAA 
violations if they released scientific data on black lung disease, for 
example, that this coal dust regulation was based on, which is not 
true. I'm a physician, and there are scientific studies released every 
day in journals across America that show X-rays and other things of 
patients without names on them, and they don't violate HIPAA 
regulations.
  I think the timing of this is important because if the rule is 
finalized, even if you see the science, it makes it very difficult to 
overturn the rule and the opportunity has passed for peer review and 
congressional review of the science behind a proposed rule.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Waxman

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in House Report 112-680.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 6, lines 18 to 21, strike subparagraph (B) (and 
     redesignate the following subparagraphs accordingly).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 788, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Waxman) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, this bill is 80 pages of one reckless 
assault after another on public health and environmental protections. 
It is probably the single worst anti-environment bill in the most anti-
environment House of Representatives in history.
  The bill continues the Republican war on science and head-in-the-sand 
approach to climate change, which is the biggest environmental 
challenge of our time. This bill attempts to legislate away the 
scientific findings by the Environmental Protection Agency that 
emissions of carbon pollution endanger public health and welfare by 
contributing to climate change. I have news for my Republican 
colleagues: You can rewrite the Clean Air Act, but you can't change the 
laws of nature.
  In June, the D.C. court of appeals upheld EPA's endangerment finding 
in a unanimous decision led by the Reagan-appointed Chief Judge 
Sentelle. The court stated that ``EPA's interpretation of the governing 
Clean Air Act provisions is unambiguously correct.'' The court 
dismissed every challenge to the adequacy of the scientific record 
supporting the EPA's findings.
  Now that the courts have decisively rejected the Republican arguments 
against the endangerment findings, House Republicans want to change the 
law. But denying scientific reality is not going to change climate 
change.
  My amendment is very simple. It strikes the language in the bill that 
would repeal the endangerment finding. It does not fix the other 
egregious anti-environment provisions of the bill, but at least 
Congress would not be doubling down on science denial. When the Energy 
and Commerce Committee first produced the language in title II of the 
bill last year, here's what one of the world's preeminent science 
journals, ``Nature,'' wrote about the votes to deny the existence of 
climate change:

       It's hard to escape the conclusion that the U.S. Congress 
     has entered the intellectual wilderness, a sad state of 
     affairs in a country that has led the world in many 
     scientific arenas for so long. Misinformation was presented 
     as fact, truth was twisted, and nobody showed any inclination 
     to listen to scientists, let alone learn from them. It has 
     been an embarrassing display, not just for the Republican 
     Party but also for Congress.

  What this amendment would do is to accept the scientific consensus, 
support our amendment, and restore the findings as they should be in 
this bill. It does not change the bill, except for the findings that, I 
think, are embarrassing to this institution and don't deserve to be in 
this legislation.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to 
the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I would say to the gentleman that we can accept all of 
the scientific evidence.
  When the Administrator of the EPA, Lisa Jackson, came to the 
committee, she was asked the question: What will happen if other 
countries don't do the same thing that we're doing? In other words, 
what's going to happen if other countries don't regulate greenhouse 
gases? She said the benefits for Americans will be very small, if 
anything, if that happens. EPA even conceded in its own analysis of its 
automobile regulations that it estimates it will reduce the Earth's 
future temperature by one one-hundredth of a degree in 90 years.
  So let's just do a balancing act here. We have a regulation proposed 
which, when finalized, would prohibit the building of any coal-powered 
plant in America, and the administrator of EPA says that the regulation 
would be ineffective unless other countries joined in.
  With that, I respectfully request the defeat of the gentleman's 
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I ask for support of this 
amendment. Let's not have the House of Representatives take a position 
on a bill upholding findings that are inaccurate, go against the 
scientific consensus, and put our head in the sand about the whole 
problem of climate change.
  I know that many of the people that don't want to deal with climate 
change are going to be coming to us, asking us to bail out their 
farmers for the crop losses. We're going to have people coming in and 
asking those of us from other parts of the country to help pay for the 
other climate disasters. We're Americans, and we try to take care of 
each other, but we also owe it to this

[[Page 14568]]

country to try to prevent the damage that we're seeing and will only 
increase in the years ahead if we do nothing about climate change, and 
certainly if we deny the very reality of the carbon emissions that are 
causing greenhouse gases, global warming, and climate change.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I've already stated my reasons to oppose the 
amendment, and I would urge everyone to vote in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Kelly

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in House Report 112-680.
  Mr. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       In section 202 of the Rules Committee Print, strike 
     ``Section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act'' and insert the 
     following:
       (a) Finding.--Congress finds that the emissions of 
     greenhouse gases from a motor vehicle tailpipe are related to 
     fuel economy.
       (b) Report Required.--Not later than 60 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation 
     shall submit a report to the Congress that, notwithstanding 
     section 201, assumes the implementation and enforcement of 
     the final rule entitled ``2017 and Later Model Year Light-
     Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average 
     Fuel Economy Standards'' (issued on August 28, 2012) and 
     estimates--
       (1) the total number of jobs that will be lost due to 
     decreased demand by year caused by the rule;
       (2) the number of additional fatalities and injuries that 
     will be caused by the rule; and
       (3) the additional cost to the economy of the redundant 
     regulation of fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions by 
     the Environmental Protection Agency and State agencies for 
     model years 2011 through 2025.
       (c) Consultation.--Other than to gather basic factual 
     information, the Secretary of Transportation shall not 
     consult with the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency or any official from the California Air 
     Resources Board in fulfilling the requirement described in 
     subsection (b).
       (d) Amendment to the Clean Air Act.--Section 209(b) of the 
     Clean Air Act

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 788, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Texas 
(Mr. Carter).

                              {time}  1850

  Mr. CARTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  This amendment would require the Secretary of Transportation to 
submit a report to Congress estimating: one, the number of jobs lost 
from the rule; two, the fatalities and injuries caused by the rule; 
three the cost to the economy caused by the rule. And it prohibits the 
Department of Transportation from consulting with the Environmental 
Protection Agency or the California Air Resources Board to complete the 
project.
  What we really have here is a situation of executive overreach. We 
have seen a lot from the Obama administration along those lines. He 
told us when Congress doesn't act, he will.
  Well, the EPA has never been involved in fuel standards for the 
industry. This has been the job that the Congress authorized the 
Department of Transportation to do through the CAFE standards, 
Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, not the EPA. California has 
State standards that they have established, but that doesn't make them 
the sole authority on the right standards.
  What this rule will do is raise the average cost of a car by $3,000. 
It will cost 160,000 jobs by the Department of Transportation's own 
flawed analysis. It will cost industry and consumers $210 billion, the 
most expensive rule ever for the automobile industry.
  This rule will price 7 million Americans out of the new car market. 
It will end the cars that are priced under $15,000. It will reduce 
vehicle safety mainly by reducing the weight and producing lighter 
vehicles, which are more susceptible to fatal collisions.
  Finally, and most importantly to the State of Texas, this will reduce 
access to pickup trucks and other work vehicles, which are abundant in 
our State. This is overreach by the government.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  There is a tremendous revolution going on in the United States right 
now that the Kelly amendment would cut right to the heart of.
  Between 2017 and 2025, as fuel economy standards in America would 
rise to 54.5 miles per gallon just because of those additional 8 years 
of higher fuel economy standards, we would back 2 million additional 
barrels of oil per day out of the United States. How much is that?
  Well, let me just give you an idea. There is conversation about 
whether or not there might be a war with Iran. Well, the United States 
imports 1.8 million barrels of oil per day out of the Persian Gulf, 1.8 
million barrels a day.
  This amendment would kill the efforts, which the auto industry has 
accepted, to back out 2 million barrels of oil per day by increasing 
the fuel economy standards between 2017 and 2025. This is one of the 
most anti-national security amendments that we could ever have out here 
on the House floor. Combined with the dramatic increase in 
CO2 that would go into the atmosphere--an additional 6 
billion metric tons of CO2 would go up into the atmosphere 
if this amendment passed. Now, how much CO2 is that? That's 
as much CO2 as the entire United States emitted in the year 
2010 in our country.
  If you look at these two issues in combination, you look at the fact 
that the auto workers endorsed the increase in fuel economy standards, 
the auto industry endorses the increase in fuel economy standards, it's 
not unlike this myth that's been created that it's anything other than 
the marketplace that is the problem that the coal industry is 
principally having with natural gas coming as a substitute across the 
country, and the petrochemical industry, and the utility industry, and 
consumers choosing it for home heating rather than oil.
  Well, the same thing is happening here. Where's the problem? Who 
wants this change? The auto industry doesn't want it. The auto workers 
don't want it. Clearly it's a huge national security issue. And the 
auto industry enjoyed last year and is repeating this year record sales 
as their fuel economy standards go up.
  So I would just say that if you care about national security, you 
really don't want to change the law tonight that backs out 2 million 
barrels of oil per day, that the industry that is living under the 
regulation supports. That makes no sense at all as we're getting 
briefed in secret this afternoon about al Qaeda all across the Middle 
East, all across North Africa. Why would we do this?
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is a subject I know a little bit about because my family 
actually has been in the business since 1953.
  I find it unique that really just inside the Beltway we're able to 
pick and chose winners and losers, and we're able to tell people, you 
know what, you're not able to drive what you want to drive, and you're 
not able to use the source of energy that you want to use. You know 
why? Because we know better.
  I tell you what: the track record here doesn't show me that you 
really know better--a $16 trillion business in the

[[Page 14569]]

red, and it continues? I would look at the President. I think he has 
got a war on wheels.
  The big thing about America is you were always able to pick the car 
you wanted to use. You could drive it anywhere you wanted. You could do 
anything you want. In this country you can leave here and drive to 
California if you want. You don't have to worry about it.
  This amendment only asks us to do something that's common sense. I 
know that's hard to understand here. I have been here for 20 months, 
I'm still trying to figure it out, and I've pretty much got it down 
now.
  When you take things away from people and replace them with something 
that they don't want, let me tell you what happens. When you raise the 
price of a car, what it does is take off the ability for somebody at 
the entry level to buy a car.
  Now, the unintended consequences in this town are absolutely 
astounding. We talk about the loss of jobs. We talk about the loss of 
jobs, not just the people who build the cars but how about the people 
who make the tires. How about all the different elements that go into a 
car, all the different things that go into a car? We have a direct 
effect on these people being successful.
  You have to get these cars lighter. When you make them lighter, what 
do you do? There's a safety impact there. The losses that we continue 
to put on our job creators is staggering here. I think the reason why 
is because most of the people here have never been a job creator. They 
have been debt creators.
  They love coming up with legislation that the average American 
couldn't begin to figure out. They scratch their head and they raise 
their shoulders and say, how is this happening? I say it's happening by 
irresponsible legislation, or if we can't legislate it, let's just 
regulate it.
  We understand what CAFE is all about. I was there when it first 
started. I understand, it was about dependence on foreign oil. The 
administration says, you know what, though? If you do this 54.5 miles 
per gallon, you know what? You'll save $8,000 in fuel. Now what they 
don't tell you is you have to drive 224,000 miles to reach that, but 
that's just a little detail. Why would we even worry about the details 
when we know so well what we're doing here? My goodness, it's evident.
  Now there is a war on wheels. There's a war on fossil fuels, there's 
a war on just about everything here that would help a job creator 
create a job. Then we tell these people, look, we want you in here with 
both feet, we want you in the game. And all I say to these folks is, 
you know what? You need to get some skin in the game too. I want to see 
your noses bloodied a little bit when you come out with these 
ridiculous regulations.
  I tell you what, as a job creator I'm being tired of being water-
boarded by our own government. I'm tired of being told that you're 
going to have to meet these standards. How did you come up with those 
standards? Well, we have got some fuzzy science that we will bring in.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. KELLY. Now I will just close with this. We can continue this 
silliness, or we can get America back to work. My suggestion is get 
Americans back to work.
  Mr. MARKEY. May I inquire of the Chair how much time I have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. MARKEY. Let me just say this again, don't quote me. I'm going to 
give you Dan Akerson, the CEO of General Motors. This is what he said 
about the standards that this amendment would repeal here tonight: Not 
only would it end our ability to back out 2 million barrels of oil a 
day that we would import from the Persian Gulf, but the CEO of General 
Motors says that these standards were a ``win for American 
manufacturers.''

                              {time}  1900

  Hear what I'm saying? The CEO of General Motors said these 
regulations are a win for the manufacturers of automobiles in the 
United States. It's not my quote. That's the CEO of General Motors. 
What's good for General Motors is good for America. I don't know if 
you've ever heard that. But let me tell you, he's not alone. It's also 
Ford, Chrysler, BMW, Honda, Hyundai, Jaguar, Land Rover, Kia, Mazda, 
Mitsubishi, Nissan, Toyota, Volvo, as well as the United Auto Workers, 
the State of California consumer groups, and environmental 
organizations. Everyone agrees on this.
  So where is the opposition coming from? Who doesn't like this? Why 
are we having a debate here? There's no point in trying to repeal 
something that enhances dramatically our national security, saves 
consumers--because it will be 54.5 miles a gallon by the time it ends. 
That means since the car goes twice as far on a gallon, instead of $4 a 
gallon, it's only $2 a gallon. That's a big savings for everyone every 
time they fill up their tank. We know that the technology is there 
because that's every ad that we see on television every night now. It's 
for the new hybrid. It's for the new technology that they're all 
touting.
  So it's all there. The industry supports these regulations that 
they're seeking to repeal. So it's just ideological. They don't like 
the government. The Republican paradox is they don't like the 
government, but they have to come to Washington in order to make sure 
it doesn't work. Here, the private sector says it's working.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Markey

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in House Report 112-680.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title II of the Rules Committee Print, add 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 203. REDUCING DEMAND FOR OIL.

       Notwithstanding any limitation on agency action contained 
     in the amendment made by section 201 of this Act, the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency may use 
     any authority under the Clean Air Act, as in effect prior to 
     the date of enactment of this Act, to promulgate any 
     regulation concerning, take any action relating to, or take 
     into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to 
     address climate change, if the Administrator determines that 
     such promulgation, action or consideration will increase 
     North American energy independence by reducing demand for 
     oil.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 788, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. My amendment is very simple: If you want to keep America 
on its current path towards North American energy independence by 2020, 
then let us ensure that EPA uses the authority to reduce demand for oil 
that this bill rescinds.
  In 1985, after the first-ever fuel economy standards mandated by 
Congress were implemented, we imported only a quarter of our oil. But 
after the Republicans and the auto industry spent decades blocking 
further standards from being set, that number skyrocketed to a 
staggering 57 percent of our oil being imported on the day in 2009 when 
George Bush walked out of the White House. We were importing 57 percent 
of our oil. And remember, we put 70 percent of all the oil we consume 
in our country into gasoline tanks.
  Well, 57 percent is a lot to be dependent upon foreign oil, 
especially at this perilous time in our Nation's history--paid for with 
money that supports

[[Page 14570]]

Iran's nuclear program, roadside bombs in Iraq, rockets for Hezbollah 
and Hamas, and hate-filled Wahhabi teachings in Saudi Arabia.
  We broke that destructive cycle when the Democrats passed, and to his 
credit, President Bush signed, the 2007 energy bill that included the 
energy bill that I coauthored to require new fuel economy standards to 
be set. President Obama accelerated the implementation and used the 
Clean Air Act to require additional reductions in demand for oil, and 
we are now back down to importing only 45 percent of our oil.
  Got that arithmetic? Fifty-seven percent imported oil on the day 
George Bush walked out of the White House in January 2009 and 45 
percent dependence today. Good job, President Obama. Let's stay on that 
path.
  That was not accomplished by launching a war on the auto industry, 
because 13 major auto companies support these standards. The unions 
support the standards, environmental organizations.
  By repealing these standards, Republicans have launched a war against 
every single resident of this country whose hard-earned paycheck gets 
poured into their gas tanks and have to pay for the defense budget to 
have all of that protection over in the Middle East to ensure that that 
oil from that dangerous part of the world comes into our country.
  And let's be very clear: If the Obama administration is allowed to 
continue with all of its energy policies, we will be 95 to 99 percent 
North American energy independent by the year 2020. That is something 
we should not get off the path for.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I rise to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I stand in opposition to the gentleman's amendment 
very simply because we know that the Clean Air Act--under the 
greenhouse gas regulations as proposed by EPA, it will be impossible to 
build a new coal-powered plant in America. Because of that, we're going 
to lose a lot of jobs in this country.
  At this time, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
  Mr. KELLY. I thank the gentleman.
  It's intriguing. And again, I've actually not just talked the talk; 
I've walked the walk. I'm always fascinated by these facts and figures 
that we throw around, and we talk about all the things that we're doing 
and we talk about General Motors.
  The General Motors that I understand, the General Motors that my 
father started with in 1936 as a parts picker, was not the same General 
Motors that told me in 2009 I could no longer be a dealer, because it 
wasn't the same General Motors. You see, General Motors kind of went by 
the wayside and a new General Motors came into view.
  And as we talk about all these folks that fell in line with what the 
administration wanted, of course they did. Who do they owe the money 
to? Who got bailed out in this great auto bailout? Who are the people 
whose jobs were saved? Who were the people whose pensions were made 
full and who was left hanging?
  So we can talk about all these wonderful things that happened, and 
these are flights of fancy. This gets to be a little bit silly to me 
when the company that agreed to these new standards was beholden to the 
people who put them forward. It wasn't good enough that we already had 
standards on the books. No, no, no, no, 32\1/2\ miles a gallon aren't 
enough. We've got to get to 54\1/2\ miles a gallon. Why is that? 
Because that's what we want. We've got to get California involved. 
We've got to get the EPA involved. We've got to get everybody else 
involved.
  I go back to day one when it was a CAFE standard and the idea was to 
get away from dependence on foreign oil. We can talk about this and we 
can pretend that these things didn't happen. We can pretend that 
General Motors went bankrupt--and the idea of taking money from the 
government was to keep General Motors from going bankrupt. Amazingly, 
they went bankrupt. And isn't it something that a company the size of 
General Motors could emerge from bankruptcy in 11 days? My gosh, that's 
fantastic. Not only did they emerge, but you know what they were able 
to keep? They were able to keep carry-forward tax losses. That usually 
doesn't happen in normal bankruptcy. But we can game that a little bit.
  So when we talk to these other manufacturers and we say we'll give a 
carrot here, but we also got a little stick that goes with it, yeah, 
they went along with it. But look who went along with it. The board of 
directors was not elected by shareholders. It was appointed by the 
administration.
  Now these flights of fancy are a little bit funny inside here, but 
for a guy that actually walked that walk and had a dealership taken 
away from him--not because I couldn't run it but because the 
administration decided under the new General Motors that I wasn't going 
to be a dealer anymore--that's hard to take. My dad started in 1953, 
worked very hard to get there. We actually did build it. I mean, we 
physically built it ourselves. And now to be told, Well, we've made a 
decision; you're not going to.
  Now, this energy stuff gets a little bit weird to me. And I know the 
President likes to take credit for all the things that the Bush 
administration did. The fact of the matter is permitting has been 
stopped. And what I would encourage all Members to do is go out in the 
field, talk to the people in the coal business, talk to people in the 
oil business, talk to people that are having a tough time staying open 
because they can't get a permit. Now you can get a permit, but you just 
have to wait in line a long time to get it.
  These things, again, this is common sense. And if we can't come 
together in this House and do what's right for the people of the United 
States, then there's something dramatically wrong. We've got tremendous 
natural resources. You just have to take advantage of it.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. Again, let me make this very clear. The increase in the 
fuel economy standards that we're debating here were the fuel economy 
standards that George W. Bush signed into law in December of 2007.

                              {time}  1910

  That was George W. Bush. The increase in the fuel economy standards 
that we're talking about here tonight are all supported by General 
Motors and Ford, all the major 13 auto manufacturers in the United 
States. The standards that we're talking about that the Republicans 
want to repeal are supported by the United Auto Workers and by all of 
the major environmental groups.
  Where is the fight? It's George Bush and General Motors and the 
environmental groups. You are all saying that you want Washington to 
work. You're all saying you want partisanship to be put aside. How can 
you look past something here that is the perfect example of how the 
whole system should work?
  You know, Bill Clinton said it right at the Democratic convention. 
It's all about the arithmetic. The D in the automobile is to drive 
forward; the R is for the reverse. The R's are the Republicans; the D's 
want to continue to move forward. They're trying to put this country in 
reverse here tonight, reverse a consensus that was established when 
George Bush was President that we had to do something about imported 
oil, and this is the act that we all agreed that we had to take.
  So what does this legislation portend for our country? Well, jobs 
saved: 1 million plus; gas pump savings: double the gas mileage means 
the consumers' costs are cut in half no matter where they drive in 
these new, more efficient vehicles; and energy independence. When it's 
all said and done, it's 3.1 million barrels of oil per day, and we can 
tell the Middle East we don't need their oil any more than we need 
their sand.

[[Page 14571]]

  I'm missing something in this debate. I still haven't heard why you 
would want to repeal something that helps our country on so many fronts 
and at the same time reduces, by 6 billion metric tons, the amount of 
CO2 that goes into the atmosphere that is dangerously 
warming our planet while America is going to sell 14 million new 
vehicles this year, the most since 2007, since the recession started, 
under this new law.
  I urge adoption of the Markey amendment, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is agreed to.
  Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  Mr. MARKEY. If I may inquire, I do not think that that objection was, 
in fact, made in a timely fashion, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan was on his feet seeking 
recognition in a timely manner.
  A recorded vote is requested.
  Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts will be 
postponed.


                Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Benishek

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in House Report 112-680.
  Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 15, line 16, insert ``, including health effects 
     associated with regulatory costs'' before the semicolon.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 788, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Benishek) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  My amendment is very simple. It's a single line that adds, at line 
15, ``including the health effects associated with the regulatory 
costs.''
  It's a simple principle. Regulations cost money to implement. No one 
will dispute that. In fact, when the EPA or any other Federal agency 
wants to issue a new regulation, it's legally obligated to let 
Americans know both the costs and the benefits of these proposed rules. 
However, due to a narrow interpretation of this obligation, the EPA 
often avoids measuring all aspects of the full costs of its proposed 
regulations, including the impact of jobs lost and the adverse health 
effects of those lost jobs.
  Why is this important? I'm a doctor, and there's near universal 
agreement among doctors, scientists, and statisticians that joblessness 
and higher energy prices result in negative health outcomes--including 
suicide, respiratory illness, and a much higher likelihood of early 
deaths.
  Despite this, the EPA never admitted that there was a simple negative 
health effect resulting from its heavy-handed air quality regulations.
  Dr. Harvey Brenner of the University of North Texas has found that a 
substantial reduction in coal-powered electricity could cause between 
170,000 and 300,000 premature deaths.
  A 2011 study by the Stony Brook University found that the risk of 
premature death was 63 percent higher for people who experienced an 
extended period of unemployment.
  According to a 2012 report by the American Legislative Exchange 
Council, Michigan will rank as the fifth worst hit State impacted by 
the EPA's most recent onslaught. Total job losses in the State could 
reach almost 15,000.
  To make matters worse, while employment is decreasing, the 
electricity rates would be increasing, potentially by as much as 30 
percent. Not only would EPA regulations be responsible for Michigan 
residents losing their jobs and paying more for electricity, it's 
estimated the State could lose $1.9 billion in manufacturing output by 
2015, as well as suffer a loss of $1.7 billion in the State and local 
government revenue.
  Let's talk a little bit more about the families in Michigan.
  We know that the 54 percent of Michigan families that earn $50,000 or 
less a year currently spend 23 percent of their after-tax income on 
energy and that Michigan families earning $10,000 a year or less devote 
85 percent of their income to energy.
  As for jobs, a recent study on the economic impact of lakes-seaway 
shipping found that waterborne commerce sustains almost 27,000 jobs in 
Michigan. In 2008, over 16 million tons of coal were delivered to 
Michigan ports, most via the Soo Locks in my district.
  Although the amount of mercury emitted from U.S. power plants has 
been cut in half since 2005, the Obama administration continues to 
insist on implementing harsh new regulations that will not only 
increase energy prices, but they will have marginal benefits. For 
example, the EPA already admits that virtually all, more than 99 
percent of the claimed benefits of the Utility MACT rule will come from 
reductions in particulate matter that is already regulated under 
separate regulations.
  Families in my district simply can't afford these burdensome 
regulations, and they deserve an administration that will be truthful 
about the real economic and health impact of any regulations they 
propose.
  I urge Members to support my amendment which, again, is simple. The 
underlying bill creates an interagency committee to assess the 
cumulative impacts of current and pending environmental regulations. My 
amendment would simply require this committee to evaluate the health 
effects associated with the regulatory costs.
  Like everyone, I want clean air and water. I grew up on the Great 
Lakes. I believe those of us who call northern Michigan ``home'' are 
blessed to live near three of the five Great Lakes. Anyone who visits 
our area is able to enjoy the clear blue waters of our vast lakes that 
stretch from horizon to horizon. I would never vote for a bill that 
would endanger such a national treasure.
  My friends across the aisle will make all kinds of claims, but the 
truth is this: This bill does not affect the authority under the Clean 
Air Act to regulate mercury and other hazardous air pollutants but, 
rather, will help ensure that those regulations are cost effective and 
use improved processes.
  Right now, my constituents need jobs, not more regulations. Our 
Federal agencies need to consider the full costs, both health and 
economic, of proposed regulations.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank you for my time, and I urge my colleagues to 
vote for my amendment and the underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time, if there's any left.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the Chair.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume just to say that this 
amendment just makes a terrible bill even worse. The bill requires a 
new interagency committee to conduct an impossible study of EPA rules 
that haven't even been proposed using data that doesn't even exist. 
This amendment requires additional nonexistent information to be 
included in the study.
  My colleague's amendment would require an interagency committee to 
examine what he calls the health effects of regulatory costs. This is 
ironic since the Republicans have shown little interest in discussing 
the health effects of the legislative monstrosity which we are debating 
today.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and to oppose the bill, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page 14572]]



                              {time}  1920

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Harris

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in House Report 112-680.
  Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 21, line 18, strike ``and''.
       Page 22, line 2, strike the period and insert a semicolon.
       Page 22, after line 2, insert the following:
       (iii) shall not issue any proposed or final rule under 
     section 109 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7409) that relies 
     upon scientific or technical data that have not been made 
     available to the public; and
       (iv) shall not issue any proposed or final rule under 
     section 109 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7409), unless the 
     accompanying regulatory impact analysis, as required under 
     Executive Order 12866, is peer reviewed in a manner 
     consistent with the Office of Management and Budget's ``Final 
     Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review'' and the third 
     edition of the Environmental Protection Agency's ``Peer 
     Review Handbook''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 788, the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Harris) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, the sad fact is that the Environmental 
Protection Agency bases its regulations on data and modeling that is 
often withheld from the public. My amendment simply requires that the 
Environmental Protection Agency make available to the public the data 
that regulations are based on and to follow its own guidelines and 
submit regulatory impact analyses to peer review. It's my hope that 
transparency, sound science and peer review are principles that 
everyone can support.
  For example, it is frequently claimed that the Clean Water Act 
generates benefits that outweigh costs by a 30-1 ratio, but almost 90 
percent of these claimed benefits are based on two studies whose 
underlying data has never been made public. I can verify this firsthand 
because for the last year I've asked the administration at committee 
hearings and on the record for this information and have been 
repeatedly rebuffed. This is not an acceptable way to run a regulatory 
agency that impacts our country's health, economy, unemployment--as we 
heard from the gentleman from Michigan--and ability to compete 
internationally.
  Both President Obama's senior science adviser and the head of EPA's 
independent science advisory board agreed with me at recent hearings 
that the scientific data used by the government to justify its 
regulatory actions should be made publicly available. EPA also states 
in its own Peer Review Handbook that ``one important way to ensure 
decisions are based on defensible science is to have an open and 
transparent peer review process.'' Unfortunately, when EPA conducts a 
cost-benefit analysis for these major Clean Air Act rules, they are not 
subjected to peer review.
  Mr. Chairman, we live in a world where people increasingly expect 
direct access to information. Government regulations should be able to 
withstand public scrutiny. If the benefits outweigh the costs, then 
prove it; and if you believe that a government regulation is justified, 
then you should have nothing to hide.
  I respectfully request support for my amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This amendment would prevent EPA from using important high-quality 
scientific research when setting standards to protect public health and 
save lives. This amendment establishes an entirely new requirement when 
EPA sets national ambient air quality standards--the scientific health-
based standards that essentially tell us how much pollution is safe to 
breathe. Under this amendment, EPA cannot use any study in setting 
these air quality standards unless the study's underlying data has been 
made public.
  Why is this a problem? Because data sets underlying peer-reviewed 
scientific studies are the private property of the scientists that 
gathered them. In many cases, those data sets may include confidential 
business information, or personal information such as an individual's 
health records. And the public availability of underlying data is not 
relevant to the quality of a study. Publication of data sets is not 
required by peer review journals and such publication is not a common 
practice in the scientific community.
  EPA cannot require scientists to give up their private property when 
they publish their peer-reviewed studies, so in many cases this 
amendment would block EPA from using relevant, high-quality studies. 
This policy has long been on the industry's wish list, and we just have 
to make sure that we don't make it possible for them to put it on the 
books as a law. This is not because of the data quality concerns or 
transparency concerns, but because all of these studies conclusively 
show that air pollution kills people, which is the very subject they do 
not want to be able to debate.
  This is a very dangerous amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no.''
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, what's there to hide? As I said, if a 
regulation is justified, why should the government hide data from the 
public in their justification of a regulation?
  Mr. Chairman, I've done scientific studies. I've been the peer 
reviewer on scientific studies. If I have a question about data, I ask 
for it and I get it and I review it myself. This is the same access the 
public should have.
  Nobody wants dirty air, nobody wants dirty water; but if we're going 
to pass job-killing regulations, we better be sure that that is sound 
science it's based on. That's what this amendment does, and I urge 
support.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Pompeo) having assumed the chair, Mr. Woodall, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3409) to 
limit the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to issue 
regulations before December 31, 2013, under the Surface Mining Control 
and Reclamation Act of 1977, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________