David McKinley

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit agencies under this legislation from using the social cost of carbon that this administration implemented under executive order. Late on a Friday afternoon in June of 2013, this increase in the cost estimate for the social cost of carbon showed up in an obscure rule regarding microwave ovens. In typical fashion with this administration, there was no public debate, no stakeholder comment, and no vote in Congress for this estimate which increased the cost over 50 percent. But they didn't consider the social cost of mental anguish and health care for those that lose their job as a result. Then again, this is the same administration who issued a de facto ban on new coal-fired powerhouses and refused to hold listening sessions in the areas most affected by fossil fuels. Coal production is down throughout Appalachia, and down by nearly half over the last 5 years under this administration. Too many people in Washington just don't get it. When you shut down the fossil fuel industry in a community--in particular, a coal mine-- you shut down an entire community. Railroad workers, machinists, timber and coal industries, pharmacists, and schoolteachers all are effected by these kinds of policies. Entire communities, the social fabric of our Nation, are on edge while this administration's ideologically driven policies are threatening hundreds of thousands of jobs all across America. This is the same President who, in 2008, said he would bankrupt the coal industry. This has become personal to me, Mr. Chairman, and many people throughout the coalfields of America. The rest of the world is investing in coal, building new plants, and increasing their consumption of coal--but not here in America. This President is gambling with our economy and risking America's future. For a President who likes to talk about fairness, Mr. Chairman, blaming our fossil fuels as a health risk isn't fair. But then again, is it fair for the EPA to require standards that can't be achieved? Is it fair to blame man for climate change when naturally occurring CO2 emissions represent 96 percent naturally, while U.S. coal emissions contributed only two-tenths? Let me say that again. Two-tenths of 1 percent of the emissions occur from coal-fired powerhouses. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I think we all can admit that CO2 emissions have increased. In the last numbers of years, 200 years, CO2 emissions have increased from 320 parts per million to 400 parts per million. During this same period of time, however, population has expanded by eight times. Life expectancy across the world has doubled. Human cancers and viral diseases have decreased. Do opponents of our fossil fuels truly believe our society will be developed on anything other than cheap, abundant, and reliable sources of energy such as coal and natural gas? Fossil fuels have lifted billions of people out of poverty. CO2 is essential to human life. In The New York Times, Bill Gates was quoted as saying: If you could pick just one thing to reduce poverty, by far you would pick energy. According to statistics from the EIA, in 2010, 80 percent of the world's GDP is attributed to fossil fuels. This represents $60 trillion. However, the opponents of this amendment and fossil fuels in general turn a blind eye to the suffering of over 1.3 billion people across the world who have no access to electricity for heating, cooking, and water supplies. That is a social travesty. To quote one climate scientist we spoke with: Just so radical environmentalists can feel better about themselves, they prevent families and children living in poverty from having access to the most dependable and affordable energy resources. That, Mr. Chairman, is immoral. In closing, I would like to thank Chairman Goodlatte for his staunch support of this amendment and his hard work on the underlying legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to accept this amendment and the legislation. Poverty is not just the number one threat to the environment and health in our society, but throughout the world in general. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia, Chairman Goodlatte.

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, under this legislation, the EPA is required to submit a report to Congress regarding the impacts this proposed regulation will have on the economy, our competitiveness, our job losses, and electricity rates. Quite frankly, many here in Congress and the constituents we represent across America have come not to trust the EPA to tell the truth about the impacts the proposed New Source Performance Standard rule or the upcoming existing source rule will have on our Nation. The amendment before us adds stakeholders with whom the EPA should consult when finalizing this report. This includes the Energy Information Agency, who will provide the EPA with the necessary statistics and background. It includes the Comptroller General who oversees the Government Accountability Office because the GAO's reports have led to hearings and legislation, billions of dollars in taxpayer savings and improvements to a wide range of government programs and services. It also includes the National Institute of Standards and Technology, who works with industry to develop and apply our Nation's technology, measurements, and standards, and, finally, the National Energy Technology Laboratory, under the direction of the Department of Energy. NETL has been leading the charge in working with the private sector and academia in developing carbon capture and sequestration technologies. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, during the House debate recently on Congressman Gardner's House bill H.R. 4480, the Domestic Energy and Jobs bill, I offered a similar amendment. This amendment passed by voice vote and ensured that NETL had a seat at the table. As background and for those of you who are unaware, NETL is our only government research, design, and development laboratory dedicated to domestic energy sources. Last year alone, NETL worked with academia and the private sector on over 1,000 projects. This represented over 55,000 jobs and $12 billion in project funding in every State and nearly every congressional district. It is only fitting that they, along with others, are included in this process. Let's be clear here. If we support transparency by having relevant agencies consult with the EPA, these same agencies who provide us with statistics, develop our standards, develop our technology, and keep our agencies and Congress in line and accountable, then you would support this amendment. Members of Congress consult with their staffs, their respective committees, other Members' offices, and their constituents, so it is fitting the EPA should do the same under this amendment. Chairman Whitfield and his staff are to be commended for their hard work to put together such an incredible bipartisan effort in this legislation. I am a proud cosponsor to work with him and encourage all my colleagues to support this amendment and, more importantly, the underlying bill. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chair, once again, I would like to reference section 3 of the underlying bill. The amendment would strengthen the analysis and reporting the EPA is required to develop under this legislation. One of the problems our coal, gas, and oil industries face is the vast ideologically motivated regulations they must endure, such as the New Source Performance Standards. However, other nations don't seem to impose such burdensome policies and regulations on their industries. Instead, countries in the Middle East and Asia promote their fossil fuel businesses and work to make it easier for those countries to get their fossil fuels to market. Mr. Chairman, it is called fairness. Now, I am sure you will hear that some of the opponents of this in the past have falsely claimed that this amendment is flawed and too broad. We have heard that this amendment might open up a Pandora's box of issues as we heard from our friends 2 years ago when I offered a similar amendment. That is simply not true, not accurate. This amendment and legislation will make certain that the United States remains viable in its manufacturing on a global scale, ensures that we don't put more people and their families or children out on the street or with uncertainty, and we can provide them with certainty and access to abundant and affordable electricity. This amendment is about protecting our liberties and providing transparency. With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank Congressman Waxman. Under this amendment, the EPA is required, as he just stated, is required to take into account the economic impacts this rule could have on our global competitiveness and the required capital investments and costs for operations and maintenance of new equipment. We know that, under the New Source Performance Standards rule, the cost of electricity could skyrocket by as much as 70 percent. This cost will be passed on to the consumers. Consequently, American manufacturers will indeed be put at a global disadvantage, and many will lose their business. We have seen testimony by economists, academics, and scientists who say that, under this proposed regulation, capital costs will increase by as much as 110 percent. This is unconscionable. At a time when Saudi Arabia, China, and India are helping their job creators thrive and open up global opportunities for them, this administration and its ideologically motivated EPA are exporting jobs, trading uncertainty, and trying to decarbonize America with little to show for health and economic benefits. The EPA needs to look at what other nations are doing to grow, stabilize, and sustain their fossil fuel industries. This amendment will help us show how we can improve and stop hindering the development of our natural resources. Ultimately, I offered this amendment because we are supposed to be a nation leading by example over the rest of the world. With nearly 23 million people underemployed or unemployed, we really ought to be saying to our regulators: Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Mr. Chairman, again, I wish to thank Mr. Upton and Mr. Whitfield for their support of this amendment and the underlying bill that goes with it. Mr. Whitfield's work on the overall bill shows his true leadership and caring for the people of Appalachia and all across America. This country is a leader of the world, an innovator, and a job creator. It is time that it reins in the excessive regulations that create burdens resulting in families, children, husbands, and spouses worried about tomorrow. It is time their regulators pull back in. This amendment and this legislation overall will create that ability that we have in the American Dream again, but not an American Dream that is driven by regulations. I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2126. While there are many differing views in Congress, there is one common ground, and that is energy efficiency. Finding ways to use energy more efficiently is simply common sense. This legislation will provide this country with a market-driven, voluntary, best practice approach to reduce energy consumption. It is an area where Republicans and Democrats can work together efficiently. That is why Peter Welch and I have developed a wonderful working relationship and developed an issue on energy that crosses this and other pieces of legislation. As one of just two engineers in Congress, and having spent nearly 50 years in the construction industry, I understand what steps we need to take to make our buildings more efficient. That is why we brought together a broad coalition of support for this legislation, supported by everyone from manufacturers, restaurants, contractors, labor, environmental groups. Even the gaming industry is supporting this legislation. It is estimated to lower energy costs by over $2 billion and result in reduced carbon emissions by nearly 12 million tons. It helps move our Nation closer to energy independence. I would like to thank Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Waxman for allowing this bipartisan bill to come to the floor, and Congressman Whitfield for helping out on all the legislation, as well as Mr. Welch. Engineers know how to make buildings operate more efficiently. Maybe our next step would be to make Congress run more efficiently. I urge all my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Michael Dale Garrett, a Firefighter and EMT-I with the Nutter Fort Volunteer Firefighter Department, who lost his life serving in the line of duty on February 1, 2014. Michael, or ``Mikey'' as he is known by his family, attended South Harrison High School, Alderson-Broaddus College and was scheduled to graduate from Fairmont State University in May with an associate's degree in emergency services. Michael's life was serving others as a first responder. He started when he was only a teenager and had experience and knowledge beyond his 28 years. He trained other firefighters and EMT personnel and was proud of his work. Michael's passion in life was helping others. Every call he took meant the potential for danger but he did his job as a professional up until his last call. His sense of humor and smile will be remembered by his family and friends. The Nutter Fort Fire Department want to stress that he died a hero, doing what he loved and lived for. I offer my condolences to his family, friends, colleagues and all those who knew Michael Garrett. We honor his memory and his dedicated service to others.

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Thank you, Congressman, for your leadership on this matter. According to Tom Miller, the West Virginia representative to the National Volunteer Fire Council, 95 percent of all fire departments in West Virginia are staffed by volunteers. To pay for their training, equipment, and operating costs, these men and women are forced to raise money through bake sales, pancake breakfasts, steak dinners, and standing in the streets, humbly, at the stoplights, holding their boots out and asking people to put money into those boots. And now these financially strapped fire departments have been told that they may have to pay health care costs. Mr. Miller has projected that the added cost of paying for this health care for these volunteers will force some departments to close their doors, putting families and businesses at risk. Mr. Speaker, cutting emergency services upon which rural America depends is clearly an unintended consequence of ObamaCare. Therefore, we must exempt our volunteer emergency responders from this additional cost by bringing this bill to the floor as soon as possible.

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, this week marks the 45th anniversary of the explosion at Consolidation Coal's No. 9 Mine in Farmington, WV. We remember the 78 miners who lost their lives in what is known as the Farmington Mine Disaster. On the morning of November 20, 1968 multiple explosions rocked the small town of Farmington and the surrounding area. The blasts were felt as far as 12 miles away. Ninety-nine men went down in the mine that day, and only 21 made it out alive. The sacrifice of these miners and their families was not in vain. The disaster led to historic safety changes for the mining industry. The Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 was signed into law as a result and generations of coal miners have benefited from the improvements in working conditions. Coal and coal mining is in West Virginia's lifeblood. Tens of thousands of West Virginians rely on coal to make their livelihood. Even today, mining coal is a difficult and often dangerous job. We must never forget the important contribution these men and women make to America. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the 1st Congressional District of West Virginia and the families of these 78 miners, I remember the victims of this tragedy and honor the sacrifice they made.

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman. I rise today to be the voice of the citizens of the First District of West Virginia and support House bill H.R. 3350. Let me share just two of the messages of the thousands that we have received. Linda from Philippi, West Virginia, writes: I am losing my health insurance due to ObamaCare. My policy has been canceled, and I am being forced to enter the exchange. I like my current policy. Under the exchange, I will be forced to pay $200 more. I am being hurt by ObamaCare. This simply isn't fair. And Sherry from Weirton, West Virginia, tells us: My parents, both retired, received a letter from their insurance company letting them know their new rate starting in January. The increase is so much they can't afford it. I pray that they can continue to receive the health care that they choose so they can continue to be healthy. They deserve better. Mr. Speaker, these are only two of the stories out of the thousands we could share. Consequently, I am urging my colleagues to support this particular legislation.

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, for months the President repeatedly pledged that he would initiate long overdue negotiations on matters ranging from tax reform to regulatory reform and work with Republicans on the flaws emerging with his health care law. His stipulation was that Congress must first reopen government and raise the debt limit. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, last week I voted to end the budget impasse and tentatively cooperate with the President. While this agreement does not solve our long term challenges, it does allow us to move forward and begin crucial negotiations on how to resolve our budget challenges. Throughout the fall, President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid demanded a blank check and refused to negotiate. This plan is not a blank check. It was forged through negotiations and provides a short term extension for funding at lower spending levels than the Senate wanted. It includes a long overdue conference on a federal budget. The plan also includes a much needed change in the Affordable Care Act to ensure the income of individuals receiving subsidies is verified instead of relying on an honor system. Most importantly, the plan ensures a host of other negotiations pledged by the President will move forward so we can address our growing debt, improve our economy, and fix the problems with the health care law. President Obama has promised on numerous occasions that once the government was open and the debt ceiling was raised he would be willing to negotiate ``on anything.'' This includes the budget, economic reforms, entitlement programs, and even the health care law. In the next few months the American public should be keenly aware whether he does what he said he would do. Finally Congress can hold the President accountable for his pledge to negotiate with Congress over these impediments to economic recovery. Over the past several weeks, conservatives put up a strong fight to stop President Obama's health care law from being fully implemented. After trying to defund the law, delay it for a year, and ensure fairness so that members of Congress don't get special treatment, it became clear that our tactics weren't working and we needed to regroup. Given that Republicans are a minority in Washington we need to be realistic about what we can achieve. That does not mean we will give up the fight. We just need to be smart about where and when we choose to fight and pick battles we can win. As we move forward with negotiations over the budget and other issues, we need to focus on ways we can achieve our objectives. We need to seek true reforms that don't just put off hard decisions to the next crisis. The challenges we face--a weak economy, a growing debt, a health care law that isn't working--are too important to just push off into the future. The next step to overcome these challenges is for the President and Senator Reid to open the negotiations we were promised.

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, for months, President Obama promised he would initiate long-overdue negotiations on issues from health care to tax and regulatory reform, all factors holding back economic growth. But he linked this pledge to Congress reopening the government and raising the debt limit. His promise to address the critical drivers of our economy is why last week I voted to end the budget impasse and tentatively agree to cooperate with the President. With the government reopened, it is time for those promises that he made to be upheld and for negotiations to begin. Our economy is still way too weak. Let's look at the facts: Ninety-seven percent of all the jobs created in America this past year have been part time; Millions of our workers are seeing their hours cut; Participation in the workforce is at an all-time low the last 35 years, with 90 million adults sitting on the sidelines. Our neighbors and our friends are struggling and are uncomfortable about their future. Our latest college graduates can't find jobs, and millions more of our country's youth have quit searching for employment. It is time to reduce the uncertainty and help these families. The House has already passed dozens of bills to help grow the economy, including tax reform, limiting excessive regulations, debt reduction, and yes, reforming ObamaCare. The President has repeatedly said he is willing to negotiate on all of these economic issues. As recently as October 3, he stated: I'm happy to negotiate with you on anything. I don't think any one party has a monopoly on wisdom. Then, on October 8, the President said: Serious negotiations could proceed around every item in the budget. He then went on to say that negotiation would not be limited just to the budget. He said: I will sit down and work with anyone of any party, not only to talk about the budget . . . about ways to improve the health care system . . . and about ways that we can shrink our long-term deficits. Congress has now upheld its end of the bargain. The American people can now judge whether the President will uphold his. In the next 90 days, let's demonstrate that Congress can indeed work in a bipartisan fashion and tackle our most serious problems now: a weak economy, a growing national debt, and a health care law that isn't ready for implementation. It is important to note that the House took steps necessary to initiate negotiation. Therefore, in fairness, the President and the Senate need to come to the table. History will record whether the President fulfills his repeated pledges and addresses these barriers to America's economic exceptionalism. Last week, many of us in the Chamber extended a hand of bipartisan cooperation to the President. But as President Reagan once said: Trust, but verify.

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, the President and his allies claim that the shutdown of government is about one thing--a Republican obsession with ObamaCare. Mr. Speaker, they are missing the point completely. For the past 3 years, the House has been working to improve our economy, to create private sector jobs, and to address barriers that inhibit economic growth. ObamaCare, unfortunately, has emerged as one of the largest challenges standing in the way of job creation: workers are having their hours cut; families and businesses are facing higher premiums; employers aren't expanding because of the uncertainty. Fixing the health care law would have the quickest impact on the economy; but, in fairness, we can't do that unless the other side sits down and talks to us. Thus far, the Senate and the President have rejected all efforts of the House and refuse to negotiate. Mr. Speaker, this debate should be about caring for the American people, their futures, and the liberties we share in America. We want to reopen the government and help families find jobs, but that requires that the House and the Senate and the President sit down together and have an adult conversation about fixing our economy.

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Rick A. Greco, DO, FACOI, who will be inaugurated as the American College of Osteopathic Internists' (ACOI) 71st President on October 13, 2013. The ACOI, which represents the nation's osteopathic internists, medical subspecialists, students, residents and fellows, is dedicated to the advancement of osteopathic internal medicine through education, advocacy, research and the opportunity for service. Dr. Greco embodies the mission of the ACOI as evidenced by his commitment to his patients and local community. Dr. Greco is a life-long resident of West Virginia. He obtained a Bachelor of Arts in Biology from West Virginia University and a Doctor of Osteopathy degree from the West Virginia School of Osteopathic Medicine. Following medical school, Dr. Greco completed his residency training at Ohio Valley Medical Center in my hometown of Wheeling, WV. He has spent his entire career working to improve access to high- quality care in underserved areas. Recognizing the need for a new medical training program in Wheeling, Dr. Greco established an osteopathic internal medicine residency program in 1999 at Ohio Valley Medical Center. In 2003 he became the Director of Medical Education and the large numbers of residents who complete their training and remained in the area to provide essential primary care services in an underserved area are testament to the quality of his training program. As a result of Dr. Greco's efforts, many more West Virginians have access to high-quality care where and when they need it most. Dr. Greco has held numerous leadership positions. He served as president of the West Virginia Society of Osteopathic Medicine and the Ohio County Medical Society and was a state delegate for the West Virginia Medical Association. In addition to his many other duties, Dr. Greco continues to serve on the ACOI Board of Directors, where he has served since 2004 and serves on numerous committees at the Ohio Valley Medical Center. His commitment to his patients, trainees, church and community is unmatched. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the 1st Congressional District of West Virginia, I ask all my distinguished colleagues to join me in congratulating my friend, Dr. Rick Greco, on his inauguration as the 71st President of the American College of Osteopathic Internists.

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, this bill currently requires that all regulations that cost $100 million or more must first be approved by Congress. Therefore, I rise today to offer an amendment to reduce that threshold from $100 million to $50 million. This would ensure greater transparency and more accountability in the process. Let's put this in perspective, Mr. Chairman. For the past 2 years, according to the regulators, of all of the regulations individually that have exceeded $100 million, only 2 percent have been reviewed. That means 98 percent of all of the regulations that we have faced in America have not had the involvement of Congress. I mean, who would be satisfied if only 2 percent of our food that we eat has been inspected? Who would be satisfied if only 2 percent of the planes that we fly in are inspected--or of our homes? businesses? The Obama administration and its overly aggressive bureaucrats are playing with people's lives. Last weekend, I was at a Serbian picnic in northern West Virginia, and I was approached by two adult males who were very concerned. Mr. Chairman, their eyes welled up with fear and concern because of all of these regulations that are being imposed on them. They fear whether they're going to have jobs because of all of these regulations which no one is overseeing. These men love to work and they want to work, but they feel these new regulations threaten their American Dream and are taking away the possibility for them to raise their families. Each of us knows men like them. They live in our neighborhoods. Whenever we go home, we see these people. They want to work, but they're afraid of someone moving the goalpost with a new regulation that's not checked by Congress. Every year, these regulations cost hundreds of billions of dollars annually, and 98 percent of them are implemented without congressional oversight. According to the Small Business Administration, the cumulative burden of regulations exceeds more than $1 trillion annually out of our economy. Let me say this again: nearly 98 percent of all new regulations have no economic analysis or oversight by the American public. According to the GAO, Federal regulators last year, Mr. Chairman, issued 2,500 new regulations--just in 1 year alone. Doesn't this administration understand that excessive, unchecked regulations harm working families? Just because the administration can issue a regulation doesn't mean that it should. By reducing the threshold from $100 million to $50 million, we provide Congress an opportunity to rein in these out-of- control agencies and allow more of our people to continue working and supporting their families. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2218. For 33 years, Congress has wrestled unproductively with how to deal with coal ash, an unavoidable byproduct of burning coal. After countless hearings, meetings, and amendments, we come here today with a solution. Over the past 2\1/2\ years, we've listened to environmental organizations, industry, Senators, the States, the EPA. Now the bill has strong bipartisan support with Democrat cosponsors and a broad coalition of over 300 organizations and businesses, including State environmental officials, Governors, recyclers, manufacturers, coal miners, coal operators, and labor unions, just to name a few. If we don't act decisively, Congress will once again kick the can down the road. That would mean the status quo continues. At the Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing on the draft legislation earlier this year, EPA Assistant Administrator Mathy Stanislaus testified that States have the ability to ensure proper management disposal of coal ash under this legislation. At that hearing, my good friend from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, asked Mr. Stanislaus if the EPA was not opposed to this language in the bill. Stanislaus' response was, ``That is right.'' Even the President has become engaged in this debate. The statement from the administration this past week noted they appreciate the efforts of the House and issued no veto threat; no opposition was expressed. That ought to tell you something. The opponents of this legislation should read the last sentence of the administration's statement: The administration would like to work with Congress . . . to allow for development, implementation, and enforcement of appropriate standards for managing coal combustion residuals, while encouraging the beneficial use of this economically important material. Let me show you what we are talking about here. This is a jar of fly ash. Every day, coal ash is produced in 48 of our 50 States across America. This is a national issue, not just one for coal States. Over 140 million tons of coal ash are produced annually. Approximately 40 percent of the material is recycled into everyday products used in households and the construction industry. The remaining 60 percent is disposed of in landfills. Now, 2218 deals separately with both of these issues. The first part deals with recycling. Early in the Obama administration, the EPA proposed a rule to declare coal ash as a hazardous material, despite the fact that under the Bill Clinton administration the EPA had already determined in 1993 and 2000 that coal ash was not hazardous. Let me repeat that. They've already said it's not hazardous. No industrialized nation in the world classifies fly ash as a hazardous material. Deeming it such would essentially destroy the ability to recycle coal ash, dramatically increase the cost of electricity, and crush hundreds of thousands of jobs across America. The United States already has a much lower rate of recycling than other countries. Europe recycles over 90 percent of the fly ash; China over 65; and Japan, 95 percent of their coal ash is recycled. We should be encouraging recycling, not standing in the way. The second part of the bill deals with processes for disposing of coal ash that is not recycled. This section has been significantly strengthened and provides for all new and existing landfills to be State-run, using the Federal law known as RCRA, which incorporates Federal standards and requirements for protecting ``human health and the environment.'' RCRA's primary goals are to ``protect human health and the environment, to reduce the amount of waste generated, and to ensure that wastes are managed in an environmentally sound manner.'' Consequently, under his bill, disposal requirements will require ``composite liners, air quality and dust controls, groundwater protection standards, emergency action plans, corrective actions for deficiencies, inspections and structural stability.'' Let me make it clear. If a landfill ever becomes deficient, it must be fixed--no ifs, ands, or buts. It is just that simple. For example, under the corrective action under section 4011, subsection (C)(2)(b): An owner/operator of a deficient facility is not relieved of their obligation to develop alternative disposal capability regardless of whether they have space available onsite. For anyone to argue otherwise, perhaps they haven't read the bill. For the first time, there will be a uniform, national standard for disposal. Or Congress can do nothing--it can--just as it has been for the last 33 years. But I don't think we should continue with the status quo. Working in this bipartisan fashion we've made progress. After 30 years of debate, it is time for action. Our constituents deserve protection for their health and environment. This legislation makes it possible. We often hear Congress isn't voting on a jobs bill. Mr. Chairman, there is not a clear jobs bill that we are going to deal with in this Congress protecting 316,000 jobs across America and preventing utility bills to increase. We must protect these jobs. I encourage all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this pro-health, pro-environment, and pro-jobs legislation.

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. McKINLEY. First, I want to just add a congratulations to my colleague from California whose position apparently has evolved over the last couple of years, because I remember back in 2011, he had a problem and voted against the recycling material. So to hear him today say how he favors, I appreciate that. That was on H.R. 1 in February of 2011. But as for this amendment, this is not necessary because H.R. 2218 establishes a minimum standard of protection for coal ash permit programs. The standard of protection is the minimum requirements that are set out in this bill and includes protections such as groundwater monitoring; corrective action; financial assurance; specific cleanup and closure requirements for unlined, leaking impoundments; stringent structural stability requirements; and fugitive dust controls. Furthermore, H.R. 2218 establishes a minimum national standard that is based on the existing criteria for municipal solid waste landfills which were promulgated by EPA to ``protect human health and the environment.'' This chart is a collection of some of the elements that are included in the bill already to deal with standards. Things like requiring that the structure be located above water tables. Groundwater monitoring is to be included in this. We have surface water controls under section 4011, controls for CCR landfills, control runoffs for CCR surface, accelerated corrective action for unlined surface impoundments. We included in this bill, and if people would read the bill, they would see that under 4011, there are areas where the EPA can help to identify deficiencies, including specific criteria for undertaking a deficiency review. It has a backstop authority to enforce that these requirements are upheld and to correct any EPA-identified deficiency. My colleague continues to use this ``race to the bottom'' among States, and they will compete with each other to become the dumping ground for neighbor States. That's a misguided assumption and, frankly, an insult to the hardworking State environmental regulators. It is unfortunate that he also does not trust the environmental regulators in his State, or any other State for that matter, to establish permit programs that are protective. My colleague ignores that the State regulators are tasked every day with protecting human health and the environment. Another problem with this amendment is that, since it is not well defined, the EPA or a judge would have the sole discretion to determine what constitutes ``protecting human health and the environment.'' Any State failing to meet this subjective and ambiguous standard would have their permit program stripped from them to be run by the EPA. This amendment diminishes the important role of the States and let's the EPA meddle in a program the States have proven that they are capable of handling. This amendment is not about protecting human health and the environment; it's about growing Federal control at the expense of the States. States have been tasked with implementing RCRA, and this bill allows them to continue to do just that. If you support bigger government, support this amendment; but if you trust your State to take care of its own people, then we should oppose it. I urge opposition to this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, later today, the President will once again refocus his efforts on jobs. Well, House Republicans never lost our focus on jobs. We have a plan to create jobs, grow our economy, and to secure our future for all Americans by expanding opportunity, not expanding government. Our plan holds government accountable to hardworking taxpayers; our plan reins in runaway government spending; our plan combats waste and abuse in government; our plan promotes an all-of-the-above all-American energy strategy that will create jobs, lower energy costs, and strengthen our national security. These are commonsense solutions that the American people deserve. It is not fair that Washington liberals keep offering up only more spending and political games. Real solutions to real problems, that's the American commitment.

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule. For over 33 years, Congress has wrestled unproductively on how to deal with coal ash, which is an unavoidable by-product of burning coal. The bill before us today provides a resolution, finally, to this issue and avoids kicking the can down the road. H.R. 2218 has two parts. The first part codifies the previous EPA studies that were conducted in 1993 and 2000 under Bill Clinton, both of them. I have copies of it here. And perhaps those that need to read those reports would understand that in the 1993 and in the 2000 reports, they concluded that coal ash is a nonhazardous material and should be beneficially recycled for use in products such as concrete block, brick, wallboard, and used in our roads and bridges across America. The second part, unfortunately they're not aware of it yet, but if they'd read the bill, they would find that it has been significantly rewritten since last year. We listened to what people were saying. We listened to the EPA, we listened to the administration, and incorporated those into this bill, so that this second part now provides for all new and existing landfills to be State run, using a Federal law known as RCRA, which in and of itself incorporates the Federal guidelines for protecting ``human health and the environment.'' Consequently, disposal requirements under H.R. 2218 will require composite liners, dust control, groundwater monitoring, financial assurances, emergency action plans, inspections, and structural stability, just to name a few. In fact, the EPA states that RCRA's primary goals are to: Protect human health and the environment, to reduce the amount of waste generated, and to ensure that wastes are managed in an environmentally sound manner. For the first time, there will be a uniform national standard for disposing of coal ash. However, as you just heard, you hear opponents of this legislation state this legislation does not protect human health and the environment. But quite frankly, that's not the case. H.R. 2218 not only includes nine different references and sections of RCRA which protect human health and environment, but also incorporates the existing RCRA part 258 regulation. To use the words of the EPA, ``EPA believes that part 258 criteria represents a reasonable balance ensuring the protection of human health and the environment.'' The opponents of this measure seem to lack a fundamental understanding, Mr. Speaker. There are jobs at stake here, 316,000 jobs across America. It's really that simple. A compromise is available. Anyone who opposes this rule will continue to support the status quo. If we do nothing, coal ash, which is generated every day in 48 of the 50 States, will continue to be disposed of. The status the way it's been since the 1950s and '60s and the unwarranted stigma that's associated with recycled materials will continue. Fortunately, finally, today, after listening and compromising and working together, there appears to be an emerging consensus to allow for the beneficial recycle of coal ash, and the concerns raised by a previous Congress have been addressed. Mr. Speaker, after 33 years of fussing with this issue, it's time to put it to rest.