Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2273, Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this structured rule and the underlying legislation. I should point out to my colleagues that Democrats yesterday introduced an amendment in the Rules Committee to make this an open rule, but, unfortunately, every single Republican on the Rules Committee voted against making this an open process. So much for Speaker Boehner's pledge for an open House of Representatives.

This rule makes in order six amendments; six out of 16 submitted, less than half that were offered to the Rules Committee. Included in those amendments was an amendment by Mr. Kissell which would have required, essentially, that all the components of the infrastructure that would create these holding facilities for steel ash would have to be made with American products, so that it wouldn't be made with Chinese steel, it would be made with American steel, American concrete, and American rebar. I have no idea why that was controversial. The American people are worried about jobs, and there was an opportunity to make an amendment in order that would have protected and ensured American jobs, and they wanted no part of it.

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Republicans are jamming a rule through the House that shuts down the debate and cherry-picks a handful of amendments.

I should also point out that this bill that we're debating here today didn't even have a hearing--no hearings. I thought we were going to adhere to regular order, and that means that the committees of jurisdiction hold a hearing on the legislation--not a general hearing on the topic, but on the legislation. No hearings were held on this.

Discussion on this bill the other night in the Rules Committee was, I thought, kind of comical. The chairman of the Rules Committee, someone who's served in this institution a very long time, said he would have preferred an open rule but said that the schedule forced him to vote against my amendment to make this an open rule. The schedule? The same House schedule where we go into recess every 2 weeks?

Mr. Speaker, the American people want us to address the challenges that are facing our economy. They want us to be focused on the issue of jobs. And we're not legislating under this schedule that the Republicans have put into place. Since there were no hearings on this bill and since there were a lot of amendments that were offered, we should have had an open process. And if it took us a couple of days to debate and vote on this bill, so be it. That's the way this place is supposed to work.

Yesterday on the floor, we wasted time debating an abortion bill that is going absolutely nowhere, a bill that is designed to inflame and divide our country. I would suggest to my friends on the other side of the aisle, instead of bringing up hot-button social issues designed to fire up the right-wing base, maybe they should think about bringing a jobs bill to the floor of the House of Representatives.

In reality, Mr. Speaker, we should be debating the President's jobs bill, and yet the Republican leadership has refused to allow us even to have a vote on the bill. If my friends on the Republican side don't want to vote for a jobs bill, then they can vote against it, but we ought to be able to have a vote on the President's jobs bill.

The fact is that it's been 281 days that we've been in session--281 days without a jobs bill, 281 days that the Republicans have stood on the sidelines while Americans struggle to make ends meet, struggle to put food on the table, struggle to make house payments, struggle to find a job to pay their bills. We need a real jobs plan, not another bumper sticker bill demonizing the EPA, which is what today's bill is all about.

The American people don't want us wasting time on these trivial bills, bills that are going to go nowhere. What they want us to do is to pass a jobs bill. They want, Mr. Speaker, us to pass the President's jobs bill. Don't take my word for it. The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that was released this week shows that nearly two-thirds of Americans want the President's jobs bill. The poll finds that 63 percent of Americans support the President's bill and that only 32 percent oppose it. It's not even close. The American people want action on jobs. They want to go back to work. They want us to do something meaningful, and they want us to do it now.

Mr. Speaker, if there's one thing that the new House majority has been consistent on this year, it's their almost religious crusade against the EPA. H.R. 2273 fits right in with their political agenda to undermine the agency at any cost and, in the process, threaten the health and safety of the American people, all under the guise of job creation. I'm appalled that that is their idea of a jobs bill.

Mr. Speaker, coal combustion waste is enormously toxic. It contains an array of the most harmful chemicals out there--mercury, lead, cadmium, hexavalent

chromium, and arsenic--that are especially devastating to the development of children. Over the years, billions of tons of coal ash have been dumped in poorly designed waste pits and containment sites in communities across the country.

I want to remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle of the catastrophic coal ash spill in Kingston, Tennessee, in 2008 where 1.1 billion gallons of liquid coal waste seeped out of a contaminated pool and contaminated local drinking water. I would also remind my Republican colleagues that it cost the taxpayers more than $1 billion to clean up that disaster, and that residents in the Kingston area are still dealing with its continuing effects.

H.R. 2273 is a bad piece of legislation, and it flies in the face of commonsense safety precautions when disposing of hazardous materials. By leaving the establishment of coal ash safety standards solely to the discretion of States, this bill simply encourages a ``race to the bottom'' where the State willing to have the least protections will become the dumping ground for the entire country. And H.R. 2273 leaves taxpayers on the hook for paying for another cataclysmic disaster like the one in Tennessee.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think any of my colleagues would want their families, their wives or husbands or children, living anywhere near the vicinity of a coal ash dumping site.

H.R. 2273 is another Republican bill that undermines commonsense health and safety protections from toxic chemicals and ultimately lowers the quality of living for millions of American families.

I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and instead send it back to the Rules Committee. Let's have an open rule. Given the fact, again, the bill didn't have a hearing, we should have an open rule here. I would urge my Republican colleagues to finally get to work on putting the American people back to work.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

To the gentleman who just spoke, I would remind him that we're debating the rule here. We could have this debate about whether or not there are health concerns here or not. I happen to believe there are, and I think most scientists believe that there are health concerns that we should take into consideration here.

But what's wrong with an open rule? What was so wrong with bringing an amendment to the floor that would have required that the components to build these containers, if you will, be made of materials made in the United States? What's wrong with U.S. steel or U.S. concrete? Why is that a controversy?

So I would say to my colleagues on the other side who like to say that they're open, let this be an open rule, especially since there were no hearings on this particular bill.

My colleague from South Carolina got up and he said he was confused. I'm sorry he's confused. Let me try to un-confuse him about one thing, which is, if you want to create jobs, bring the President's jobs bill to the floor. Economists predict that the American Jobs Act could create up to 1.9 million jobs next year and boost economic growth by about 2 percentage points. You've got a twofer here. Not only do you put people back to work, but you help to reduce our deficit when you put more people to work. If we could lower the unemployment rate in this country by a few percentage points, we could lower our deficit. Why is that so controversial?

Rather than focusing on partisan bills that don't mean much for the economy, it's time for the Republicans to take up the American Jobs Act, which is fully paid for, includes bipartisan ideas, will create jobs, and grow our economy now. What we should be doing every single day on this House floor is focusing on jobs, on putting people back to work. Instead, today is another bill attacking the EPA, and yesterday we did an abortion bill. I mean, we're talking about everything but how to put people back to work, so I would urge my colleagues to get their priorities straight.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would remind my colleague on the Rules Committee, the gentlelady from North Carolina, that over half the Senate--over half the Senate--voted to bring up the President's jobs bill. Over half the Senate supports the President's jobs bill. But under the arcane rules in the United States Senate, you need 60 votes to have lunch, never mind pass a bill.

So it wasn't defeated. A majority actually support the President's jobs bill. It is the Republicans who are obstructing this legislation, who are using procedural tricks to keep this bill from coming up before the United States Senate for a clean up-or-down vote. It is Republicans in the House of Representatives who are saying that none of us will have an opportunity to vote on the President's bill.

I mean, here's a good idea. You bring up what you want to bring up; you let us bring up what we want to bring up. The President's bill, as I said, is very popular. The legislation, I would remind my friend from South Carolina, is paid for, is paid for.

The legislation's specifics as well as the idea of taxing the very, very, very wealthy to pay for it are popular with the American public, and that's according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

So, I mean, what are you afraid of? If you don't want to vote for legislation to help put people back to work, then you don't have to vote for it. You go home and explain to your constituents why you're against the bill.

What we should be doing here in this U.S. House of Representatives is, every day, debating and legislating on ways to be able to put this country back to work. You want to reduce the deficit? Put people back to work. If you want to improve the economy, put people back to work. It's simple. And we're doing everything in this place but debating legislation to put people back to work.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would say to the gentlelady from West Virginia, I don't know how many cosponsors there are on the bill, but I want to vote for the bill. I'm willing to propose a unanimous consent request that we amend this rule and we bring up H.R. 12 today. If the gentleman on the other side of the aisle is willing, let's bring it up and have that debate right now.

I am happy to yield to the gentleman if he wants to agree to that unanimous consent.

Well, the silence, Mr. Speaker, is deafening.

The fact of the of the of the matter is that we are going to finish up today at 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock or whatever and then go on another week recess when the American people are struggling, when there are millions of people who are out of work, when there are millions of families struggling to try to pay their mortgages, when there are millions of families who are trying to figure out how they're going to have the resources to send their kids to school. This is the best we can do? Come on, we can do a lot better than this, Mr. Speaker.

I would again urge my colleagues to get serious and, if you don't like the President's jobs bill, then vote against it. It's that simple. But let us bring a bill to the floor that by every measure, by every public opinion poll that is out there, is popular. The American people want it. You always like to invoke polls. Well, the polls overwhelmingly show the American people support this. So let's bring that bill to the floor.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My colleague on the Rules Committee from South Carolina said we should all work in a bipartisan way, and I agree. And that's what the President attempted to do. His jobs bill represents a series of initiatives that were all bipartisan, that were all bipartisan until he announced he wanted to move on it, and then all of a sudden it became a partisan deal. Everything in the President's jobs package has been sponsored in a bipartisan way. So I don't understand why now. If you want to call it the Republican idea, I don't care what you want to call it, but bring it to the floor and allow us to be able to debate these bipartisan initiatives that will put people back to work.

Again, I would say about the rule, where's the openness here? I mean, the majority of amendments that were offered were not made in order, including an amendment that would require that the building materials for these holding tanks be made in America. Why is that so controversial? Why is making things in America a radical idea to my Republican friends? Why is it somehow a bad thing to insist that the steel used to build these plants be made in the United States of America and not China? I mean, we all should be on the side of American workers here, and that means standing up and making sure those jobs are here in the United States. So let's open this rule up so we have an opportunity to protect American jobs.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. I reclaim my time.

So the new definition of openness under the Republican majority is you don't have to have a legislative hearing on a bill that you bring to the floor, but you can say it doesn't matter or that you did, or whatever. This is not the way this place is supposed to work. This process is not what my friends on the other side of the aisle promised.

Again, I have yet to hear a good reason why this is not an open rule. Given the fact that there was no hearing on this specific bill, given the fact that there were a number of germane amendments that were not made in order, given the fact that during the debate there may be Members on both sides of the aisle who may have ideas they may want to bring to the floor and amend this bill, and also given the fact that one of the amendments that was not made in order was an amendment that would have required that the materials that are used to make these coal ash containers be made in the United States of America, why is that such a heavy lift for my friends on the other side of the aisle?

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, a new study from Tufts University shows that we can create tens of thousands of new jobs by requiring safe disposal of coal ash. Ensuring that coal ash disposal sites protect human health and the environment will take work. It will take construction workers, equipment operators, and engineers. And this isn't a ``make work'' effort. These jobs will provide tremendous benefit to the communities in which they take place. But these jobs will not happen if we pass this bill. This bill basically preserves the status quo. So if we want to create jobs, I think we need to vote this bill down.

Again, Mr. Speaker, we're still trying to get an understanding on this side of the aisle as to why we don't have an open rule and why an amendment that would require that job stability infrastructure for all of this, that all the materials be made in America. If we want to protect American jobs and create American jobs, we have to stand up and fight for American jobs and fight for American workers.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me close by, again, first of all, saying that this rule should be an open rule and that, at a very minimum, the amendment that would require that the materials that would be used to construct any of these containers be made in the United States of America. It's important that we stand up for American jobs. It's important that we make it in America. And so this rule deserves to be defeated based on that alone.

This process is also bad and flawed because there was no hearing on this particular piece of legislation, and the ranking member of the full Energy and Commerce Committee did not think, based on what he said, that this was a particularly bipartisan, open process. In fact, there are some Members who supported this bill in committee who will not support it on the floor because of promises that were supposedly made that were not kept. So, for a whole bunch of reasons on process, we should defeat this rule.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, on the underlying bill, I would remind my colleagues that part of our job here is to protect the safety and well-being of the people we represent. Coal ash contains arsenic, lead, and many other toxic materials that can escape into the air or water if the material isn't properly contained. We should be concerned about the safety implications here. We should be concerned about any consequences that may result in poor regulation and poor oversight. And to basically, again, take this time on the floor to again take another slap at the EPA because that's the favorite punching bag of my friends on the Republican side of the aisle, I think, is not a credit to this institution and is not doing what we were elected to do, and that is to make sure that we are upholding the safety and protecting the people of this country.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that the problem is all regulation, only EPA regulation. There was an interesting opinion piece that appeared in The New York Times by a fellow named Bruce Bartlett--he had held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, served on the staff of Jack Kemp--who did a piece for The New York Times entitled, ``Misrepresentations, Regulations and Jobs.''

I'll read a couple of the lines from his piece. He says:

``Republicans have a problem''--and he's Republican himself. ``Republicans have a problem. People are increasingly concerned about unemployment, but Republicans have nothing to offer them.''

He further says: ``No hard evidence is offered for this claim'' that all the uncertainty within business is tied to regulation.'' He says that notwithstanding the lack of evidence, the Republicans repeated this assertion ``endlessly throughout the conservative echo chamber.''

He also says: ``While concerns about regulation have risen during the Obama administration, they are about the same now as they were during Ronald Reagan's administration, according to an analysis of the federation's data by the Economic Policy Institute.''

He ends by saying this: ``In my opinion, regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out. In other words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high unemployment.''

I bring that up not to say that regulation isn't a problem and that we should not deal in a constructive way with needless regulation--the President said that in his speech to the House when he introduced his jobs bill--but it is not the only problem out there. And to suggest that bringing bills like this to the floor are going to somehow create jobs is just patently false.

If we want to create jobs in this country, we should bring the President's jobs bill to the floor. Again, the American people overwhelmingly support what the President outlined in his speech before the Congress; and all the things that he articulated, I say to my friend from South Carolina, were bipartisan ideas. Republicans and Democrats all cosponsored legislation on various pieces of his proposal. Why now they have become controversial is beyond me.

I'll just close with this: At some point I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle will get serious about the issue of jobs; at some point I hope they will bring something meaningful to this House floor that, if passed, will actually put people back to work, because up to this point the Republican leadership has failed miserably. And I think people all across this country--and you see this reflected in the public opinion polls--have had it. They're tired of this constant agenda of hot-button issues and of trivial matters that we debate passionately and important ones not at all.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order an amendment by Mr. Garamendi of California which was submitted to the Rules Committee. They didn't make it in order even though it is germane and fully paid for and meets every requirement of the rules of the House. The amendment would make sure that construction materials used to build holding facilities for coal ash are made in America.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Again, Mr. Speaker, let me repeat, the amendment we want to make in order would make sure that construction materials used to build holding facilities for coal ash are made in America. Why that should be controversial is beyond me. Why anybody on either side should oppose that is beyond me.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
[From the New York Times, Oct. 4, 2011]

Misrepresentations, Regulations and Jobs
(By Bruce Bartlett)

Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul.

Republicans have a problem. People are increasingly concerned about unemployment, but Republicans have nothing to offer them. The G.O.P. opposes additional government spending for jobs programs and, in fact, favors big cuts in spending that would be likely to lead to further layoffs at all levels of government.

TODAY'S ECONOMIST PERSPECTIVES FROM EXPERT CONTRIBUTORS

Republicans favor tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, but these had no stimulative effect during the George W. Bush administration and there is no reason to believe that more of them will have any today. And the Republicans' oft-stated concern for the deficit makes tax cuts a hard sell.

These constraints have led Republicans to embrace the idea that government regulation is the principal factor holding back employment. They assert that Barack Obama has unleashed a tidal wave of new regulations, which has created uncertainty among businesses and prevents them from investing and hiring.

No hard evidence is offered for this claim; it is simply asserted as self-evident and repeated endlessly throughout the conservative echo chamber.

On Aug. 29, the House majority leader, Eric Cantor of Virginia, sent a memorandum to members of the House Republican Conference, telling them to make the repeal of job-destroying regulations the key point in the Republican jobs agenda.

``By pursuing a steady repeal of job-destroying regulations, we can help lift the cloud of uncertainty hanging over small and large employers alike, empowering them to hire more workers,'' Mr. Cantor said.

Evidence supporting Mr. Cantor's contention that deregulation would increase unemployment is very weak. For some years, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has had a program that tracks mass layoffs. In 2007, the program was expanded, and businesses were asked their reasons for laying off workers. Among the reasons offered was ``government regulations/intervention.'' There is only partial data for 2007, but we have data since then through the second quarter of this year.

The table below presents the bureau's data. As one can see, the number of layoffs nationwide caused by government regulation is minuscule and shows no evidence of getting worse during the Obama administration. Lack of demand for business products and services is vastly more important.

BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

These results are supported by surveys. During June and July, Small Business Majority asked 1,257 small-business owners to name the two biggest problems they face. Only 13 percent listed government regulation as one of them. Almost half said their biggest problem was uncertainty about the future course of the economy--another way of saying a lack of customers and sales.

The Wall Street Journal's July survey of business economists found, ``The main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies, according to a majority of economists.''

In August, McClatchy Newspapers canvassed small businesses, asking them if regulation was a big problem. It could find no evidence that this was the case.

``None of the business owners complained about regulation in their particular industries, and most seemed to welcome it,'' McClatchy reported. ``Some pointed to the lack of regulation in mortgage lending as a principal cause of the financial crisis that brought about the Great Recession of 2007-9 and its grim aftermath.''

The latest monthly survey of its members by the National Federation of Independent Business shows that poor sales are far and away their biggest problem. While concerns about regulation have risen during the Obama administration, they are about the same now as they were during Ronald Reagan's administration, according to an analysis of the federation's data by the Economic Policy Institute.

Academic research has also failed to find evidence that regulation is a significant factor in unemployment. In a blog post on Sept. 5, Jay Livingston, a sociologist at Montclair State University, hypothesized that if regulation were a major problem it would show up in the unemployment rates of industries where regulation has been increasing: the financial sector, medical care and mining/fuel extraction. He found that unemployment rates in these sectors were actually well below the national average. Unemployment is much higher in those industries that one would expect to suffer most from a lack of aggregate demand: construction, leisure and hospitality, business services, wholesale and retail trade, and durable goods.

Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution, asserts that if businesses were really concerned about rising regulations, they would be investing now to avoid them. But there is no indication that this is the case. ``The real reason for anemic investment and hiring is that businesses are not confident there will be enough potential customers to justify expansion or even routine capital replacement right now,'' he says.

In my opinion, regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out. In other words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high unemployment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. I would just remind my friend that you have already brought up 30 measures under a closed rule since you took over. Again, I'm just trying to keep you to your promise that you made about all this new openness, which we haven't seen. And today is an example of that.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source