H6196 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 20, 2012 

[Roll No. 591] 

YEAS—237 

Aderholt 

Amodei 

Andrews 

Baca 

Bachmann 

Bachus 

Baldwin 

Barber 

Barrow 

Barton (TX) 

Bass (NH) 

Becerra 

Berg 

Berkley 

Berman 

Biggert 

Bilirakis 

Bishop (GA) 

Bishop (UT) 

Black 

Blackburn 

Bonamici 

Bonner 

Bono Mack 

Boren 

Boswell 

Brady (PA) 

Braley (IA) 

Buchanan 

Buerkle 

Burton (IN) 

Butterfield 

Calvert 

Campbell 

Canseco 

Cantor 

Capito 

Capps 

Capuano 

Carnahan 

Carney 

Carson (IN) 

Carter 

Castor (FL) 

Chandler 

Cicilline 

Clarke (MI) 

Coble 

Cole 

Conaway 

Connolly (VA) 

Cooper 

Costa 

Costello 

Courtney 

Cravaack 

Crawford 

Crenshaw 

Critz 

Crowley 

Cuellar 

Culberson 

DeLauro 

Denham 

DesJarlais 

Deutch 

Diaz-Balart 

Dicks 

Dingell 

Doggett 

Dold 

Donnelly (IN) 

Dreier 

Duncan (TN) 

Ellmers 

Engel 

Eshoo 

Farr 

Fattah 

Fincher 

Fitzpatrick 

Fleischmann 

Fleming 

Flores 

Forbes 

Fortenberry 

Frank (MA) 

Frelinghuysen 

Fudge 

Gardner 

Garrett 

Gingrey (GA) 

Gonzalez 

Gosar 

Graves (MO) 

Green, Gene 

Grijalva 

Grimm 

Guinta 

Guthrie 

Hahn 

Hall 

Harper 

Harris 

Hastings (WA) 

Hayworth 

Heck 

Heinrich 

Higgins 

Himes 

Hinojosa 

Hochul 

Holden 

Holt 

Hoyer 

Israel 

Issa 

Johnson (IL) 

Johnson, Sam 

Kaptur 

Keating 

Kildee 

Kind 

King (IA) 

Kinzinger (IL) 

Kissell 

Kline 

Lamborn 

Lance 

Langevin 

Larsen (WA) 

Larson (CT) 

Latham 

LaTourette 

Levin 

Lewis (CA) 

Lipinski 

Loebsack 

Lowey 

Lucas 

Luetkemeyer 

Luja ́n 

Lungren, Daniel 

E. 

Lynch 

Maloney 

Marino 

Markey 

Matheson 

McCarthy (NY) 

McCaul 

McClintock 

McHenry 

McIntyre 

McKeon 

McKinley 

McMorris 

Rodgers 

McNerney 

Mica 

Michaud 

Miller (MI) 

Miller (NC) 

Miller, Gary 

Miller, George 

Moran 

Murphy (CT) 

Myrick 

Nadler 

Noem 

Nunes 

Nunnelee 

Owens 

Pallone 

Pascrell 

Pastor (AZ) 

Paulsen 

Pearce 

Pelosi 

Perlmutter 

Peters 

Peterson 

Pitts 

Platts 

Posey 

Price (NC) 

Quigley 

Rahall 

Rehberg 

Reichert 

Reyes 

Rigell 

Rivera 

Roby 

Roe (TN) 

Rogers (AL) 

Rogers (KY) 

Ros-Lehtinen 

Roskam 

Rothman (NJ) 

Roybal-Allard 

Runyan 

Ruppersberger 

Sa ́nchez, Linda 

T. 

Sarbanes 

Schiff 

Schilling 

Schock 

Schrader 

Schwartz 

Serrano 

Sessions 

Shimkus 

Shuler 

Simpson 

Sires 

Slaughter 

Smith (NE) 

Smith (TX) 

Smith (WA) 

Stearns 

Sutton 

Terry 

Thornberry 

Tierney 

Tipton 

Turner (OH) 

Van Hollen 

Walden 

Walz (MN) 

Wasserman 

Schultz 

Waxman 

Welch 

Wilson (FL) 

Wilson (SC) 

Wolf 

Womack 

Woodall 

Young (FL) 

NAYS—180 

Ackerman 

Adams 

Alexander 

Altmire 

Amash 

Austria 

Barletta 

Bartlett 

Bass (CA) 

Benishek 

Bilbray 

Bishop (NY) 

Blumenauer 

Boustany 

Brady (TX) 

Brooks 

Broun (GA) 

Brown (FL) 

Bucshon 

Burgess 

Camp 

Cassidy 

Chabot 

Chaffetz 

Chu 

Clarke (NY) 

Clay 

Cleaver 

Clyburn 

Coffman (CO) 

Cohen 

Conyers 

Cummings 

Davis (CA) 

Davis (IL) 

DeFazio 

DeGette 

Dent 

Doyle 

Duffy 

Duncan (SC) 

Edwards 

Ellison 

Emerson 

Farenthold 

Flake 

Foxx 

Franks (AZ) 

Garamendi 

Gerlach 

Gibbs 

Gibson 

Gohmert 

Goodlatte 

Gowdy 

Graves (GA) 

Green, Al 

Griffin (AR) 

Griffith (VA) 

Gutierrez 

Hanabusa 

Hanna 

Hartzler 

Hastings (FL) 

Hensarling 

Herger 

Herrera Beutler 

Hinchey 

Hirono 

Honda 

Huelskamp 

Huizenga (MI) 

Hultgren 

Hunter 

Hurt 

Jackson Lee 

(TX) 

Johnson (OH) 

Johnson, E. B. 

Jordan 

Kelly 

King (NY) 

Kingston 

Kucinich 

Labrador 

Landry 

Lankford 

Latta 

Lee (CA) 

Lewis (GA) 

LoBiondo 

Lofgren, Zoe 

Long 

Lummis 

Mack 

Manzullo 

Marchant 

Matsui 

McCarthy (CA) 

McCollum 

McDermott 

McGovern 

Meehan 

Meeks 

Miller (FL) 

Moore 

Mulvaney 

Murphy (PA) 

Napolitano 

Neal 

Neugebauer 

Nugent 

Olson 

Olver 

Palazzo 

Paul 

Pence 

Petri 

Pingree (ME) 

Poe (TX) 

Polis 

Pompeo 

Price (GA) 

Quayle 

Rangel 

Reed 

Renacci 

Ribble 

Richardson 

Richmond 

Rogers (MI) 

Rohrabacher 

Rokita 

Rooney 

Ross (FL) 

Royce 

Rush 

Ryan (OH) 

Sanchez, Loretta 

Scalise 

Schakowsky 

Schmidt 

Schweikert 

Scott (SC) 

Scott (VA) 

Scott, Austin 

Scott, David 

Sensenbrenner 

Sewell 

Sherman 

Shuster 

Smith (NJ) 

Southerland 

Stark 

Stivers 

Stutzman 

Sullivan 

Thompson (CA) 

Thompson (MS) 

Thompson (PA) 

Tiberi 

Tonko 

Tsongas 

Turner (NY) 

Upton 

Vela ́ zquez 

Visclosky 

Walberg 

Walsh (IL) 

Waters 

Watt 

Webster 

West 

Westmoreland 

Whitfield 

Wittman 

Woolsey 

Yarmuth 

Yoder 

Young (AK) 

Young (IN) 

NOT VOTING—12 

Akin 

Filner 

Gallegly 

Granger 

Jackson (IL) 

Jenkins 

Johnson (GA) 

Jones 

Ross (AR) 

Ryan (WI) 

Speier 

Towns 

b 1711 

Messrs. OLSON, SCOTT of South 

Carolina, Ms. SEWELL and Mr. 

DUFFY changed their vote from ‘‘yea’’ 

to ‘‘nay.’’ 

So (two-thirds not being in the affirmative) the motion was rejected. 

The result of the vote was announced 

as above recorded. 

Stated against: 

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 591, I 

was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been 

present, I would have voted ‘‘yea.’’ 

f 

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. 

b 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 

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 goodpaying 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. 

b 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. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6197 

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. 

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. 

b 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. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6198 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 20, 2012 

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—antienvironmental 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 Reaganera 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 31⁄2 minutes, and the 

gentleman from Massachusetts has 11⁄2

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. 

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. 

b 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. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6199 

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 coalpower 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 antienvironment 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 

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. 

b 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 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6200 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 20, 2012 

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 41⁄2

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; crossstate 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 33⁄4 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Kentucky has 21⁄2 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. 

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. 

b 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 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6201 

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 byproducts 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-power 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 

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. 

b 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. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6202 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 20, 2012 

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 standalone 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. 

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 unAmerican. 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. 

b 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. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6203 

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. 

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 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6204 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 20, 2012 

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 undrinkable 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. 

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). 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6205 

‘‘(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). 

‘‘(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). 

(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). 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6206 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 20, 2012 

(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 

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. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6207 

(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. 

‘‘(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 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6208 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 20, 2012 

‘‘(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 

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— 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6209 

‘‘(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— 

‘‘(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. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6210 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 20, 2012 

‘‘(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 landbased 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).’’. 

(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. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6211 

(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 

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. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6212 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 20, 2012 

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 11⁄2 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Washington State has 21⁄2 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.’’ 

b 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 21⁄2 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: 

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

add the following: 

SEC. ll. 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. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6213 

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 reprove 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 

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. 

b 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 Xrays 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. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6214 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 20, 2012 

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 

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). 

b 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 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6215 

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 

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 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6216 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 20, 2012 

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.’’ 

b 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 

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 coalpowered 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, 321⁄2 miles a gallon 

aren’t enough. We’ve got to get to 541⁄2

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. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6217 

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 21⁄2 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. 

b 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 in 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. 

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 heavyhanded 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, 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6218 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 20, 2012 

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 allow 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. 

b 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 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6219 

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, highquality 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. 

f 

FEDERAL RESERVE 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under 

the Speaker’s announced policy of January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. WOODALL) is recognized for 60 

minutes as the designee of the majority leader. 

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate you coming in tonight and allowing me to have the time. 

I’m going to get a little outside of 

my comfort zone tonight, Mr. Speaker. 

You talk about the 20 months you and 

I have been on the job here in this 

body. We’ve talked a lot about tax policy. And I feel like we’re going to have 

a conversation. I think, as we stand in 

this Chamber a year from today, we 

will have signed fundamental tax reform into law. I’m excited about seeing 

this body do that. 

I think about health care reform. As 

we stand here today, I feel like this 

time next year, we will have much 

more freedom in our health care system. I feel like we’ll have skin in the 

game in our health care system. That’s 

a conversation that America has had 

and will continue to have. 

But a conversation America has not 

been having, Mr. Speaker, is one about 

the Federal Reserve and what the Federal Reserve is doing to help with jobs 

and the economy. We talk about that 

here on the floor of the House on a regular basis: What are we doing to help 

jobs and the economy? 

As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have 

about 30 bills sitting over in the Senate 

that we’ve passed here in the House 

that would stimulate the economy, 

that would help American workers get 

back to work, but the Senate has failed 

to act. And in the absence of action by 

the Senate and in the absence of being 

able to move legislation to the President’s desk, the economy continues to 

flounder. 

b 1930 

The President has orchestrated about 

$800 billion worth of stimulus programs, but that has not gotten the 

economy back on track. Not only did 

we not get unemployment down, it continued to rise under that stimulus program. And so what we have, and so if 

you folks in America talk about it, we 

have an independent Federal Reserve 

that engages in monetary policy, and 

these days, in economic stimulation. 

I want to point, Mr. Speaker, to an 

article by—well, I’ll call him Dr. Phil 

Gramm. I mean, in fact, he’s Senator 

Phil Gramm, from the great State of 

Texas, but he was born in the great 

State of Georgia and got his Ph.D. 

from the University of Georgia, his 

Ph.D. in economics. And he had an article in The Wall Street Journal just 

this past week, and I want to tell you 

what it said. 

Phil Gramm writes this, Senator 

Gramm writes this, Dr. Gramm writes 

this: 

Since mid-September of 2008, the Federal 

Reserve balance sheet has grown to $2.8 trillion, from $924 billion, as it purchased massive amounts of U.S. Treasury’s and mortgage-backed securities. To finance these purchases, the Fed increased currency and bank 

reserves, base money. That kind of monetary 

expansion would normally be a harbinger of 

inflation. However, the bank’s holding the 

excess reserves, rather than lending them 

out, and with velocity, the rate with which 

money turns over, generating national income at a 50-year low and falling, the inflation rate has stayed close to the Fed’s 2 percent target. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, I work hard. I 

study hard. I get through paragraph 

one of Dr. Gramm’s editorial, I’m already getting confused because we 

don’t spend enough time talking about 

velocity of the money supply. We don’t 

spend enough time talking about what 

the Federal Reserve’s doing in terms of 

purchasing the bonds. And we don’t 

spend enough time talking about monetary expansion. 

But let me get into some terms that 

we do talk about more, Mr. Speaker. 

The second paragraph of the editorial. 

While the Fed considered its previous 

rounds of easing, QE1, QE2 and Operation Twist, the argument was consistently made that the cost of such actions was low because inflation was nowhere on the horizon. 

That same argument is now being 

made as the central bank contemplates 

QE3 during the Federal open market 

committee meetings on Wednesday and 

Thursday. Inflation is not, however, 

the only cost of these unconventional 

monetary interventions. As investors 

try to predict the timing and effect of 

Fed policy on financial markets and on 

the economy, monetary policy adds to 

the climate of economic uncertainty 

and status already caused by current 

fiscal policy. There will be even greater 

costs when the economy begins to 

grow, and the Fed, to prevent inflation, 

has to reverse course and sell bonds 

and securities to the public. 

Now, I’m not going to say that’s still 

perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker. But I am 

going to say, we’re starting to talk 

about QE1, QE2, now QE3 because that 

open market committee met and decided to proceed with QE3, and Operation Twist. Now what are these terms, 

and why don’t we talk about them 

more often? 

Let me just go briefly, Mr. Speaker, 

to the Federal Reserve Act. Just to be 

clear, section 2(a), monetary policy objectives, this is what, we, the Congress, 

Mr. Speaker, have charged the Federal 

Reserve with. And I’ll quote from the 

statute: 

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market 

Committee, shall maintain long-run growth 

of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy’s long-run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate longterm interest rates. 

Now, when folks want to know what 

it is the Federal Reserve does, this is 

the congressional mandate: increase 

production so as to promote efficiently—effectively, pardon me—the 

goals of maximum employment, stable 

prices, and moderate long-term interest rates. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, I’m not a Ph.D. 

economist, but I’ve taken a few economics classes over the years. And 

what I would tell you is I have always 

imagined that full employment and 

stable prices and moderate long-term 

interest rates are often in conflict with 

one another. 

You know, when you want to stimulate the economy, you try to lower interest rates so folks borrow more 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE