August 2, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5987 

In fact, I have a picture right here. 

This is the North Dakota Heritage Center. Right now there is a $50 million expansion being constructed in that Heritage Center which is located on the 

capital grounds in Bismarck. It is a $50 

million expansion. They are using 

building materials made of coal ash for 

this facility. That is what it is going to 

look like after they do this $50 million 

expansion. 

Let me give another example. This is 

the National Energy Center of Excellence at Bismarck State College. It is a 

2-year college that trains people for the 

energy industry. It is located right 

above the Missouri River. This beautiful window overlooks the Missouri 

River. Again this is a building constructed with building materials made 

of fly ash. We can see how this product 

is being used and how effectively this is 

being used. 

As a matter of fact, if we look nationwide, by recycling coal ash we reduce energy consumption by 162 trillion Btus every year. That is the 

amount of energy we would use to 1.7 

million homes in a year. It is pretty 

substantial energy savings. Or measure 

it in terms of water use. By recycling 

coal ash, we reduce water usage by 32 

billion gallons annually. That is about 

one-third of the total amount of water 

that the State of California uses in a 

year. 

Why do I tell the story? Because 

right now the EPA is looking at changing the regulation of coal ash. They are 

looking at changing the regulation of 

coal ash to doing it under subtitle C of 

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The problem is that is the hazardous waste section. Right now coal 

ash is regulated under subtitle D of the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act, which is the nonhazardous waste 

section. The EPA is looking at making 

that change in spite of the fact that 

the Department of Energy, the Federal 

Highway Administration, State regulatory agencies, and the EPA itself 

have done studies, and those studies 

have shown that is not a toxic waste. 

The EPA first proposed this new regulation in June of 2010. This regulation 

would truly undermine the industry, 

drive up costs, and eliminate jobs when 

our economy can least afford it. In 

fact, according to industry estimates, 

it would increase electricity costs by 

up to almost $50 billion annually and 

eliminate 300,000 American jobs. 

Let me elaborate. Meeting the regulatory disposal requirements under the 

EPA’s subtitle C proposal would cost 

between $250 and $450 per ton as opposed to about $100 per ton under the 

current system. That would translate 

into $47 billion in terms of burden on 

electricity generators that use coal 

and, of course, most importantly, their 

customers who would see their bills increased. As I said, overall it would cost 

about 300,000 American jobs for our 

economy. 

That is why I am introducing the 

Hoeven-Conrad-Baucus Recycling and 

Oversight Act, which is S. 3512, and it 

has very strong bipartisan support. It 

is truly a bipartisan bill, including 12 

Republican sponsors and 12 Democratic 

sponsors. The Republican sponsors include myself, Senator MCCONNELL, 

Senator PORTMAN, Senator BOOZMAN, 

Senator BLUNT, Senator RON JOHNSON, 

Senator MORAN, Senator ALEXANDER, 

Senator TOOMEY, Senator GRAHAM, 

Senator THUNE, and Senator HATCH. 

The Democratic cosponsors include 

Senator CONRAD, Senator BAUCUS, Senator KOHL, Senator LANDRIEU, Senator 

MANCHIN, Senator WARNER, Senator 

PRYOR, Senator MCCASKILL, Senator 

BEN NELSON, Senator BILL NELSON, 

Senator CASEY, and Senator WEBB. I 

wish to thank them for their willingness to join together in a bipartisan 

way—12 Republicans, 12 Democrats— 

coming together to provide the kind of 

energy legislation that is going to 

truly help move this country forward, 

empowering not only more energy development but better environmental 

stewardship. 

This legislation is similar to H.R. 

2273, which was sponsored by Representative DAVID MCKINLEY of West 

Virginia in the House, and it passed the 

House with strong bipartisan support. 

This legislation is very similar. We 

have made some enhancements, but it 

is very similar. 

The bill not only preserves coal ash 

recycling by preventing these by-products from being treated as hazardous, 

it also establishes—and this is important because it is also about good environmental stewardship—it also establishes comprehensive Federal standards for coal ash disposal. Under this 

legislation, States can set up their own 

permitting program for the management and the disposal of coal ash. 

These programs would be required to 

be based on existing EPA regulations 

that protect human health and the environment. If a State does not implement an acceptable permitting program, then EPA regulates the program 

for the State. As a result, States and 

industry will know where they stand 

under the bill, since the benchmarks 

for what constitutes a successful State 

program will be set in statute. EPA 

can say yes, the State does meet those 

standards, or no, it does not, but the 

EPA cannot move the goalposts. 

This is a States-first approach that 

provides regulatory certainty. Let me 

repeat that. This is a States-first approach that provides regulatory certainty, and it is that regulatory certainty we need to stimulate private investment that will deploy the new 

technologies that will not only produce 

more energy but will produce better 

environmental stewardship. 

What is certain is that under this 

bill, coal ash disposal sites will be required to meet established standards. 

Those established standards include 

groundwater detection and monitoring, 

liners, corrective action when environmental damage occurs, structural stability criteria, and the financial assurance and recordkeeping needed to protect the public. 

This legislation is needed to protect 

jobs and help reduce the cost of homes 

and roads as well as to help reduce 

electric bills. 

I wish to thank both Republicans and 

Democrats who have taken a leadership role in this effort as original sponsors of the legislation. I especially wish 

to express thanks to my fellow Senator 

from North Dakota, Mr. CONRAD, as 

well as Senator BAUCUS of Montana 

and their staffs for the hard work that 

has gone into this legislation. I urge 

our colleagues to join us in this important energy legislation. 

By Mr. REED: 

S. 3513. A bill to promote the development of local strategies to coordinate 

use of assistance under sections 8 and 9 

of the United States Housing Act of 

1937 with public and private resources, 

to enable eligible families to achieve 

economic independence and self-sufficiency, and for other purposes; to the 

Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs. 

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce the Family Self-Sufficiency 

Act. 

The Family Self Sufficiency, FSS, 

program is an existing employment 

and savings incentive initiative for 

families that have section 8 vouchers 

or live in public housing. The FSS program provides two key tools for its 

participants: first, it provides access to 

the resources and training that help 

participants pursue employment opportunities and meet financial goals, and 

second, it encourages FSS families to 

save by establishing an interest-bearing escrow account for them. Upon 

graduation from the FSS program, the 

family can use these savings to pay for 

job-related expenses, such as the purchase or maintenance of a car or for 

additional workforce training. 

My legislation seeks to enhance the 

FSS program by streamlining the administration of this program, by broadening the supportive services that can 

be provided to a participant, and by extending the FSS program to tenants 

who live in privately-owned properties 

with project-based assistance. 

First, to streamline the FSS program, my bill would combine the two 

separate FSS programs into one. Currently, HUD operates one FSS program 

for those families being served by the 

Housing Choice Voucher Program and 

another for those families being served 

by the Public Housing program, even 

though the core purpose of each FSS 

program, to increase economic independence and self-sufficiency, is the 

same for both. As a result, Public 

Housing Agencies, PHAs, have to operate essentially two programs to 

achieve the same goal. With my bill, 

PHAs would be relieved of this unnecessary burden. 

Second, my legislation broadens the 

scope of the supportive services that 

may be offered to include attainment 


bjneal on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with CONG-REC-ONLINE
S5988 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE August 2, 2012 

of a GED, education in pursuit of a 

post-secondary degree or certification, 

and training in financial literacy. Providing families in need with affordable 

rental housing is critical, but coupling 

it with the support and services to help 

families get ahead is more effective. 

This legislation makes it easier for 

FSS participants to obtain the training 

necessary to secure employment and 

the education to make prudent financial decisions to better safeguard their 

earnings. 

Lastly, this bill opens up the FSS 

program to families who live in privately-owned properties subsidized 

with project-based rental assistance. It 

shouldn’t matter what kind of housing 

assistance a family gets, and families 

seeking to achieve self-sufficiency 

shouldn’t be held back by this sort of 

technicality. 

I urge my colleagues to support this 

bill, which will help give those receiving housing assistance a better chance 

to build their skills and achieve economic independence. 

By Ms. SNOWE: 

S. 3516. A bill to encourage spectrum 

licenses to make unused spectrum 

available for use by rural and smaller 

carriers in order to expand wireless 

coverage; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. 

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise 

today to introduce legislation to help 

expand wireless broadband to rural 

areas. Specifically, the Rural Spectrum 

Accessibility Act would direct the Federal Communications Commission, 

FCC, establish a program that would 

provide an incentive, a three year extension to a spectrum license, to wireless carriers that make available, 

through partitioning and 

disaggregation, unused spectrum to 

smaller carriers or carriers serving 

rural areas. 

As the FCC National Broadband Plan 

reports ‘‘most areas without mobile 

broadband coverage are in rural or remote areas.’’ This legislation would 

provide an additional incentive to increase wireless broadband to these 

areas and make more spectrum available to smaller and rural wireless carriers through secondary market mechanisms. 

This bill is loosely based on a wireless carrier’s existing program, which 

creates a partnership with rural carriers to build and operate Long Term 

Evolution, LTE, wireless networks in 

rural areas. Through the cooperation 

the carrier provides spectrum and core 

network equipment and the rural carrier supplies the cell towers and 

backhaul. 

The Rural Spectrum Accessibility 

Act is an effort to get other large carriers to implement similar initiatives 

to create more opportunities for the 

smaller and rural carriers. It should be 

noted the FCC actually already has 

partitioning and disaggregation rules, 

see 47 C.F.R. 22.948, this legislative proposal just provides a simple but attractive incentive for carriers to utilize 

them. 

The main goal of this legislation is to 

provide another catalyst to expand 

next generation, 4G, Wireless 

broadband service to rural areas, which 

will mean more reliable service, more 

innovation, and more choice to rural 

consumers and businesses. 

The increasing importance of wireless communications and broadband 

has a direct correlation to our Nation’s 

competitiveness, economy, and national security. We must reform existing spectrum policy and management 

to ensure that all Americans continue 

to realize the boundless benefits of 

wireless broadband. Congress has taken 

some steps but more can and must be 

done. That is why I sincerely hope that 

my colleagues join me in supporting 

this important legislation. 

By Mr. WYDEN: 

S. 3518. A bill to make it a principal 

negotiating objective of the United 

States in trade negotiations to eliminate government fisheries subsidies, 

and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance. 

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise 

today to introduce the Fair Trade in 

Seafood Act. 

Right now, our country is proud to be 

a world leader in the fishing and seafood processing industries. We rank 

among the world’s top five exporters of 

seafood, and its largest importer. However, the U.S. seafood industry faces 

many challenges on the global stage 

from unfair competition. The Congress 

should be doing everything it can to 

make sure we retain our status as global leader. That is why I am introducing 

the Fair Trade in Seafood Act. This bill 

will establish this issue as a Principal 

Negotiating Objective of the United 

States in the ongoing Trans-Pacific 

Partnership and World Trade Organization talks. 

Why is this bill important? According to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, 85 percent of 

the world’s fisheries are fully exploited, overexploited, depleted, or recovering from depletion—the highest 

percentage since the Food and Agricultural Organization began keeping 

records. 

Many governments continue to provide significant subsidies that push 

their fleets to fish longer, more intensively, and farther away than otherwise would be possible. These destructive fisheries subsidies are estimated 

to be at least $16 billion annually, an 

amount equivalent to approximately 20 

percent of the value of the world catch. 

The detrimental effects of these illegal 

subsidies are so significant that eliminating them is the single greatest action that can be taken to protect the 

world’s oceans. 

In contrast to these nefarious actors, 

the U.S. does not just talk about the 

importance of sustainable fishing practices and marine conservation. We are 

practicing what we preach. That means 

enforcing regulations and changing old, 

counterproductive, destructive habits. 

Our seafood industry is stronger because of it. At the same time, our market is open. In my view, this is the way 

every country ought to run its seafood 

industry. Our foreign trading partners, 

as I mentioned, often support practices 

that can cause long-term harm to marine habitat. In addition, our trading 

partners put up trade barriers that prevent sustainably caught U.S. seafood 

from reaching foreign consumers. 

These are practices that skew the playing field in a competitive marketplace. 

They skew the playing field against 

American fishers and give foreign competitors a huge advantage in an industry that depends on global trade. Forty 

percent of global fishery products are 

traded internationally, and seafood is 

more globally sourced than coffee, rice, 

and tea combined. 

These harmful foreign trade barriers 

and practices that encourage overfishing are top priorities that need to 

be addressed. These foreign trade barriers harm our country’s ability to create good-paying jobs. Preserving the 

wealth of the world’s marine environment is of paramount importance. The 

U.S. seafood industry represents a 

major portion of our economy, employing over 1.5 million workers in the 

commercial sector alone. The commercial seafood industry has a significant 

presence in over 23 States and is an industry and, in fact, a way of life, a way 

of life that binds communities and 

stitches together the regions of our 

country. The seafood sector employs 

more people than the mining or oil industries. 

It is also a foundation of our economy because, without fish, there are no 

jobs. Preserving the wealth of our 

oceans and rivers is an economic imperative as much as a moral one. That 

is why I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Fair Trade in Seafood Act. 

In short, this Act will codify an official trade negotiating objective of the 

United States with respect to government fisheries subsidies. More specifically, the negotiating objective will be 

to eliminate fisheries subsidies provided by governments that unfairly destroy markets to the detriment of the 

United States commercial fishing interests and that perpetuate 

unsustainable fishing practices. The 

bill aims to ensure that any commitments with respect to such subsidies 

are enforceable under appropriate 

trade laws. This negotiating objective 

will apply to any trade agreement that 

includes any negotiations relating to 

the elimination or reduction of government fisheries subsidies. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed 

in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the text of 

the bill was ordered to be printed in 

the RECORD, as follows: 

S. 3518 

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

Congress assembled, 


bjneal on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with CONG-REC-ONLINE