Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, in an op-ed in The New York Times this morning, four former EPA administrators appeal for action on climate change, stating: The United States must move now on substantive steps to curb climate change. I think this House could learn a thing or two from the authors of this article. These former EPA administrators worked for four Republican Presidents: Nixon, Reagan, George Bush, and George W. Bush. They say that ``there is no longer any credible scientific debate'' about climate change, and they also point out that our window for action is shrinking. They say they support the actions that the President is now taking under the Clean Air Act to reduce carbon pollution, and they call on Congress to start the overdue debate about what bigger steps are needed domestically and internationally. They conclude with this very powerful statement: The only uncertainty about our warming world is how bad the changes will get, and how soon. What is most clear is that there is no time to waste.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentlelady for yielding to me some time to talk about one specific bill that this rule would allow the House to consider. Mr. Speaker, I would urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``no'' vote on the underlying bill. It's called the REINS Act, Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act. What does that mean? Well, that's a bill that says anytime there's a regulation adopted pursuant to a law that we passed that costs over a certain amount of money, Congress is going to pass the regulation. Well, that just delays things and means special interests can get in here and stop those regulations that are needed to protect the public health and the environment. I want to give an example. I asked the Rules Committee to make in order that this particular bill shouldn't stop proposed FDA food safety regulations. Well, they didn't even allow me to offer that amendment. But the reason I wanted to offer that amendment and the reason this bill is not a good bill, is that foodborne illnesses, we are seeing outbreaks striking often and more frequently, and that can happen to anybody, Democrat or Republican. Foods we never thought would have imagined to be unsafe--everything from spinach to peanut butter--have sickened an untold number of Americans. Our food supply has also become increasingly globalized, which poses another danger. So 50 percent of our fresh fruit and 20 percent of our fresh vegetables are imported, and this imported food is responsible for a large share of the number of foodborne illness outbreaks. Since 2011, eight of the 19 multi-State outbreaks were from imports. So what did Congress do? Well, we said we've got to do something about it, and we adopted a bill on a bipartisan basis called the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act. It passed in 2010. That law provided FDA the power to set a way to police the food supply and make significant improvements throughout the food chain from the farm to the dinner table to stop these unsafe foods. FDA has been working hard to comply with this mandate. This year, they issued three proposed rules that would implement some of the key pieces of the food safety legislation. One rule would require farmers to comply with science-based standards for safe production and harvesting of produce. Another would require companies that process or package foods to implement preventive systems to stop outbreaks before they occur.

Mr. WAXMAN. The purpose of these rules are to stop and prevent the outbreak of foodborne illnesses. Last week, FDA issued a proposed rule to mandate that importers demonstrate that the food they bring into the country is safe. Well, these rules will not be allowed to go into effect until Congress--both the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States with all their committees and subcommittees--meet to consider the regulations that FDA adopted. While they're doing all of that, we'll be exposed to foodborne illnesses. My amendment would make this process of the REINS bill unnecessary as it applies to this particular area, but it illustrates why the REINS bill is not well thought through. Congress shouldn't have to adopt every regulation if we adopt a law saying to an agency ``adopt regulations based on the science, adopt regulations to enforce the law.'' I would urge we oppose the rule and oppose the REINS bill as well.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, as I rise in opposition to this amendment, the supporters would claim that it's about transparency. What it's really about is not transparency. It's about a way to block or delay critical EPA rules. That's what this whole bill is all about. The amendment does the same thing. They use rhetoric about transparency to cloud the amendment's true impact. The amendment would prevent EPA from using the best science available when implementing its public health laws. It accomplishes this by not allowing EPA to rely on any scientific study unless the agency can publish, on its Web site, all of the underlying data associated with that study. Today, EPA prides itself on using the best science available. The Agency understands that ideology will not stand the test of time, but science will; and their rules and regulations have to be based on the science, so they gladly inform stakeholders and the public about the studies upon which they rely. The underlying data to peer-reviewed studies is often not published. That's because the data sets underlying peer-reviewed scientific studies are the property of the scientists that spend their careers gathering that information. The EPA cannot require the scientists to give up their private information. Oftentimes, those studies involve going to a lot of people and trying to find out the impact of certain exposure to pollutants. Those people agree to the study on the basis that this information about them will not be made public. But this amendment would say it would be impossible for EPA to use gold-standard scientific studies available to them unless they post this other data on their Web site. Why do we want to prevent EPA from using high-quality scientific studies to set new pollution standards? This is an issue that came up many years ago. In 1997, EPA used a study conducted by researchers at Harvard to set a new air quality standard for particulate matter. They did a rigorous peer-reviewed study that was conducted over a period of 16 years. The Harvard people showed conclusively that exposure to particulate matter in the air can kill people, while polluters said: We don't want EPA to issue this rule, it's going to cost us money. So they said that EPA should publish all of the Harvard scientists' data, claiming that the scientists were keeping a secret. Well, the data is the work product and property of the Harvard scientists, not EPA. The agency couldn't release that information. They're relying on the Harvard scientists to give independent scientists access to the data after the scientists signed a confidentiality agreement. So independent scientists spent the next 3 years reanalyzing the data, and came to exactly the same conclusion. There should be no objection to EPA relying on studies like this one. It's a long-term study with a huge sample. This is exactly the kind of rigorous review we expect of EPA. I urge opposition to this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that EPA does not have this underlying data. It doesn't belong to EPA. It belongs to the scientists who did the study. Consider this issue in a different context. If a pharmaceutical manufacturer wants to bring a new product to market, they would never be required to post all of their underlying data on the public Web site in order for FDA to rely on it. There's no other agency that would be held to such an unreasonable requirement as this amendment would impose on EPA. They review the data, but they don't put it on their Web site. EPA does not have the underlying data, and they can't require that the owners of the underlying data who did the study, often based on confidential agreements for those who participate in the study, they can't require that study be given to them. They are relying on the scientific data and the study results. I think all this would do is make it more difficult for EPA to protect the public health. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. The Murphy amendment denies that carbon pollution is harmful. It prohibits the Environmental Protection Agency from considering the costs of climate change when analyzing the impacts of its rules. According to this amendment, the cost of carbon pollution is zero. Well, that's science denial at its worst. We are telling EPA the cost of carbon pollution is zero. It's like waving a magic wand. We are going to decree that climate change imposes no costs at all. The House Republicans can vote for this amendment. They can try to block EPA from recognizing the damage caused by climate change, but they cannot overturn the laws of nature. We should be heeding the warnings of the world's leading climate scientists, not denying reality. In the real world, scientific instruments accurately measure the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the levels trapped in ancient ice. Those measurements tell us that carbon dioxide levels just hit 400 parts per million this spring, and that's the highest levels in the last 3 million years. In the real world, higher levels of heat- trapping carbon pollution are warming the planet and changing the climate. We are experiencing more record-breaking temperatures, worse droughts, longer wildfire seasons with more intense wildfires, and an increased number of intense storms, more flooding, and rapidly rising sea levels. Pretend it doesn't happen. Pretend that's not the reality. On the other hand, as the proponent of this amendment suggested, let's look at the impact on the family that may lose its job. Well, I think that ought to be under consideration, but let's not have an amendment that would ignore the cost of carbon pollution. We are seeing the effect of climate change not some time in the future but right now. And we're being told it's not going to get better by itself; it's going to get worse. Scientists have been telling us for years. EPA and other Federal agencies have a responsibility to calculate the cost of climate change and take them into account when they issue new standards. That's common sense, and that was the clear message from the Government Accountability Office when it added climate change to its high-risk list earlier this year, and that's exactly what the Obama administration is doing. They have an interagency task force that worked, over the course of several years, to estimate the cost of the harm from carbon pollution. It incorporated the latest scientific and technical information. I'm sorry people lose their jobs, but they don't have to lose their jobs. If an industry is told to reduce carbon emissions, they don't have to fire people. They can develop and buy the technology that would reduce that pollution. So to help those polluters not have to do that, we're going to pretend there's no cost. Mr. Murphy's amendment would require the government to assume zero harm, zero cost from carbon pollution and climate change. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. It's based on magical thinking. Don't be a science-denier. Vote against the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, this is not my philosophy that would lead me to urge that we reduce carbon emissions. It's based on the science. Thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies have indicated that carbon causes problems. It causes health effects, and it threatens the climate. The homeowners in Arizona, Texas, Colorado, and California who have seen their homes ravaged by drought-stoked wildfires know the cost of carbon pollution. The families of brave firefighters know the cost of carbon pollution. The farmers and ranchers suffering the effects of prolonged drought, many of whom have lost entire crops or been forced to sell their livestock, know the cost of carbon pollution. And the thousands who lost businesses and homes after Hurricane Sandy slammed into the east coast know the cost of carbon pollution. That cost is not based on a philosophy. It's based on the science and the reality. Reject this magical-thinking amendment. Don't be a science-denier. Vote against the amendment and the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This Republican bill is simply a disguised assault on EPA rules that protect human health and the environment. That's why the White House has said that the President would veto this bill--if it got to him. Last Congress, this House, under Republican leadership--they know how to dress, but they don't know how to legislate. The Republicans voted over 300 times to roll back environmental laws. Nearly half of these votes were efforts to block EPA rules. The House voted to block EPA standards for mercury, a serious toxin, and other air pollutants that are similarly poisonous from power plants and incinerators. The House voted to strip EPA of authority to set water quality standards. The House even voted to overturn EPA's scientific finding that carbon pollution endangers health and the environment. The problem the Republicans face is that the public doesn't want more air and water pollution. They don't support these attacks on public health standards that protect our kids and our seniors. The public doesn't want to weaken the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act or the Safe Drinking Water Act. The public supports our bedrock environmental laws. So it should come as no surprise that none of these attacks on EPA in the last Congress became law. They all died in the Senate. Now, House Republicans are trying a new approach: rather than blocking EPA action directly, they want to give another agency veto power over EPA rules. Under this bill, if the Department of Energy determines that a rule proposed by EPA would cause any ``significant adverse effects to the economy,'' EPA would be blocked from finalizing the rule. This bill would set a terrible precedent. If we give DOE a veto power over EPA, where do we stop? Are we next going to give the Department of Commerce a veto over the State Department or the IRS a veto over the FDA? This kind of thinking would mean that our government would be so dysfunctional that the whole government would look like the Congress of the United States. Even if DOE does not veto an EPA rule, the extensive analysis required under the bill could delay EPA rules for years, which means more air pollution, more asthma for our kids, and more danger to our planet. We have an obligation to our children and future generations to protect our atmosphere while there is still time. We need to be acting faster, not putting on the brakes to benefit the big polluters. This is a costly bill. The Congressional Budget Office says that the price tag for all the reviews and the reports required under this legislation would be $35 million over 5 years. This is money that we don't have to spend, especially since the DOE reviews will simply be duplicative of exhaustive analysis already done by the EPA. And while EPA is acting, they can give EPA their point of view. And consider this point: at the same time that the House Republicans are telling DOE to undertake exhaustive analysis of EPA rules, they are slashing DOE's budget. DOE could end up with no resources to do these reviews. Existing statutory deadlines for EPA to issue public health standards would be replaced with indefinite delay. This bill is a recipe for making the Federal agencies dysfunctional. No one should want that. Let me give you an example of the kind of public health standard this bill is designed to block. During the committee markup, the chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee argued that this legislation is needed because he was not satisfied with EPA's analysis of the mercury and air toxics rule. He wasn't satisfied. EPA did a whole analysis. They got the costs; they got the benefits. It was all quantified. Every year, EPA's standards will help reduce mercury pollution, prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths, and deliver up to $90 billion in benefits to the Nation. But this individual Member wasn't satisfied. It's a tremendous success story that will deliver up to $9 of benefits for every $1 spent. That's what EPA was proposing to do. No Member of Congress, no other department, should stop those kinds of regulations from being put in place. The fact that this rule is the poster child for the public health rule this legislation is designed to block shows just how misguided this legislation truly is. This bill is deeply flawed; it is a veiled assault on critical public health and environmental protections. I urge all Members to oppose this latest Republican attempt to gut our Nation's cornerstone environmental laws, which were adopted by bipartisan votes. And now the Republicans in a partisan way are trying to make sure those laws do not work to protect public health and the environment. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I am pleased at this time to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), the ranking member of the subcommittee from which this bill emerged.

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I am now pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), who is the ranking member of the subcommittee called Environment and the Economy.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I would like to yield 3 minutes to a very important member of our full committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I only have one more speaker on my side. May I inquire of the manager of the bill, how about you?

Mr. WAXMAN. So, under those circumstances, I would like to yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Chair, there was a claim from one of the supporters of this bill that the EPA is using faulty science to justify its rules. In fact, the proponents of this bill are using faulty examples to try to justify this ridiculous bill. For example, the gentleman from Louisiana's chief example of a faulty EPA rule is what he refers to as a ``formaldehyde rule.'' In fact, this isn't a rule. It is a draft scientific assessment that is completely unrelated to the energy- related rules that are the subject of this bill. I do want to point out that pollution control regulations create jobs because they create clean technologies that the whole world wants. The proponents of this bill claim they are worried about jobs and the unemployed. I think they're crying crocodile tears. The Republicans are for the sequestration, which is costing hundreds of thousands of jobs. They are threatening the U.S. with default. They are against food stamps for people who don't have jobs and who don't have food to eat. Give me a break. They're not trying to save jobs; they're trying to save some of these big polluting industries that have to pay to reduce their pollution. Now, we've heard that this bill is going to provide more checks and balances because the EPA will then have its rules reviewed by the Department of Energy, but EPA rules go through a very extensive interagency process. Other agencies, including the Department of Energy, can make their views known to the EPA. The Office of Management and Budget already has the ability to have any concerns addressed before they allow EPA rules to go forward. These rules go through months or even years of scrutiny before they are issued, but this bill creates a new, unchecked authority for the Department of Energy to veto public health rules. That's a terrible idea. Why would we give one agency the unchecked authority to block another agency's rules? There are plenty of checks and balances in the existing law. Then we hear the argument that this bill is really about transparency because somebody else should be overseeing EPA rulemaking. But, in fact, this bill will do the opposite. The bill creates a duplicative and confused regulatory process for EPA rules. After EPA has done its analysis, they've weighed the risks and the costs and the benefits, they've heard from people who are claiming the costs are too high, they've heard from people claiming the benefits are not enough. Whatever the claims are, they evaluate those claims based on science. And according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, if we let EPA review all these regulations again from scratch, the taxpayers are going to pay $35 billion. The bill gives the Department of Energy an unprecedented veto over EPA public health rules. And you know what? There's no public comment when DOE does that. They don't hear from the public. They'll hear from the industry, but they won't hear from the public. They're not equipped to evaluate the scientific health benefits. They're looking at the costs. It's a skewed DOE analysis. This bill is not about transparency. We were told this is not over any simple rules; it's only over the expensive ones, regulations that will cost over a billion dollars. A billion dollars over a year? A billion dollars over 10 years? A billion dollars over 20 years? There is no definition of that. They say a billion dollars. Okay. But that could, then, be used to stop a rule that is far less than what people think it would cost, and, of course, the benefits have to outweigh the cost before the rule can even be issued by EPA. I want to give a good example of regulations that would be stopped by this legislation. EPA and the Department of Transportation work together on tailpipe standards and fuel efficiency rules for automobiles and other motor vehicles. There are huge benefits. They help consumers save money at the pump. When you have a car that runs on more miles per gallon, you're saving money. We're also protecting the environment because we're not burning as much carbon. Under the rules, by 2025, Americans will be able to travel twice as far on a gallon of gas, which will save consumers thousands of dollars. But that rule won't go into effect because the DOE now has to get involved. Transportation and EPA are proposing rules over their jurisdiction, over transportation and over air pollution. These rules, which could lead to consumers seeing gasoline at the pump drop by over a dollar a gallon, could be held up. And even though these rules are all supported by the major auto companies, including Ford, GM, and Chrysler, these rules will cut U.S. emissions and carbon pollution by $6 billion, but this bill could prevent EPA from adopting new vehicle rules that will save consumers even more money and continue to address the threat of climate change. This is a very bad bill. It doesn't make sense, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment under the rule.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair and my colleagues and anybody listening to this debate, under this bill, if DOE determines that a rule by the Environmental Protection Agency would cause any significant adverse effects to the economy, EPA would be permanently blocked from finalizing that rule. That's a pretty broad assault on the rules that EPA might issue because EPA rules are to protect public health and the environment. So if this bill became law, a lot of clean air and clean water protections would be at risk, and the terms in the bill are so expansive and vague that nearly every major public health proposed rule could be delayed and would be affected because DOE is not going to do this extensive analysis. My amendment is straightforward. It eliminates the bizarre provision in this bill that gives the Secretary of Energy the unprecedented authority to effectively veto public health rules. It makes no sense for DOE to veto an EPA public health rule, especially since the veto would be based on DOE's analysis of the economic impact, which is by its terms a macroeconomic analysis. What is this going to do to the economy if this rule goes into effect? Did anybody ever think that the DOE does not do that kind of analysis? Perhaps they should have had the Department of the Treasury do a macroeconomic evaluation. They do things like that. But instead, the authors of this bill want DOE to do it. All right. It's outside of DOE's area of expertise. This, I think, would be a terrible precedent. Time and time again, Congress has turned to the EPA to trust the agency with the mission of protecting our air and our water from pollution. The Department of Energy should not have the power to veto the public health protections that Congress required in the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act or other bedrock environmental laws. The DOE veto is inconsistent with the stated purpose of this bill because the other side of this bill thinks DOE ought to do an independent analysis. We would concede it: let DOE do an independent analysis, but don't let it stop the rule from going into effect. EPA's analysis, before they issue their proposed regulation, goes through an interagency process, DOE can intervene, the Office of Management and Budget can review it and even hold up the regulation. So let the regulation go forward and let DOE do its additional analysis, but don't let that analysis lead to paralysis if we're talking about affecting the public health in this country. This amendment would stop the veto of an EPA regulation by DOE. It does not stop the Department of Energy from doing its analysis, but it would stop them from--while they're doing the analysis particularly-- holding up a regulation and then leaving it to them exclusively to decide that they're going to veto the regulation based on a different kind of analysis than one would expect, which is to look at the benefits, to look at the costs, and make sure those benefits are more of a benefit in dollars and cents even. Put a price on life. That's what we're talking about. Put a price on a kid's asthma. That's what we're talking about. But EPA tries to do that analysis and has to show that its regulation is going to be more economically beneficial than the cost of the regulation. And of course you imagine when they look at costs and benefits, the costs are always overstated. I've seen that in all of the years I've been here, and I've been here for decades. The costs are always overstated by the polluting corporation that doesn't want to have to take the steps to reduce their pollution. EPA hears what they have to say, but they do their own analysis of the cost to do the regulation. So I would urge support for this amendment. Leave the bill if you want it, but don't give that veto power to DOE. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the extraordinary courage and resilience of Mr. John Odom, a victim of the Boston Marathon bombings who has spent the last 100 days recovering from his life-threatening injuries. Mr. Odom traveled from Redondo Beach, California to Boston to watch his daughter Nicole run her first marathon and he was standing near the finish line when the first explosion went off. Shrapnel from the explosion severed two of Mr. Odom's arteries and his sciatic nerve. His son-in-law, Matt Reis, was able to staunch the blood loss using his belt as a tourniquet and Mr. Odom's wife Karen applied pressure to the wound until help arrived. Mr. Odom spent 5\1/2\ weeks at Boston Medical Center and underwent eleven surgeries. Afterwards, he was transferred to Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital where he spent another 5\1/2\ weeks receiving therapy. He is currently undergoing outpatient therapy at Spaulding and is making great progress with the incredible support of his family. He hopes to return home to Southern California in September. We have all heard about the extraordinary acts of bravery and heroism of the victims of the Boston bombings. Mr. Odom has had a long hard struggle since April 15, but he has persevered and is getting stronger as each day passes. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring him today and I hope you will keep him and his family in your thoughts as he continues to heal.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, every day a member of the Safe Climate Caucus has come to the floor to raise concern about climate change, and we know about climate change from hurricanes and tornadoes and droughts and all of the other things that we're seeing. But yesterday, the prestigious science journal, Nature, published an analysis of the cost of the rapid warming in the Arctic. That analysis found that the cost could range from $10 trillion to over $200 trillion. The mean cost is $60 trillion. I'm not misspeaking. It's not $60 million, it's not $60 billion, but it's $60 trillion. These enormous costs are the consequence of the release of 50 gigatons of methane now trapped in the Arctic ice shelves, which experts believe will be released into the air within the next 50 years, if not sooner, if we don't stop spewing carbon pollution into our atmosphere. The Arctic is pivotal to the functioning of the Earth's systems, such as the oceans and the climate, but we're recklessly endangering it. We need to stop acting like members of the Flat Earth Society and start listening to the urgent warnings of the scientists.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, the House is considering legislation to block EPA from acting to ensure that toxic coal ash is safely disposed of. Coal ash is the result of the coal that has been burned, and this coal ash needs to be disposed of. Now, what the Republicans who are suggesting this bill be adopted are suggesting is that we remove public health protections in order to allow polluting disposal sites to continue with business as usual. That's a little tough to justify. As we led up to today's debate, we've heard some outlandish justifications, and I just want to set the record straight. First of all, we've been told this is a states' rights bill because we need this legislation in order for the States to impose adequate regulation on dangerous coal ash disposal sites. Well, that's not true. The States can regulate coal ash disposal today and, in fact, many do. The problem is that many States are not doing a good job. For example, in Ohio, four coal ash disposal sites have serious groundwater contamination problems. The coal ash at these sites has contaminated groundwater with arsenic, mercury, and radioactive levels of materials higher than allowed under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Well, in total, EPA has identified 133 cases of groundwater and surface water contamination at coal ash disposal sites. All of this has occurred under existing law, where State laws can be effective and States can act. The problem is they're not all acting. Secondly, the proponents of this bill have argued that we have to pass this legislation to allow coal ash to be recycled. They argue that EPA wants to designate coal ash as ``hazardous.'' Well, that isn't what EPA proposed at all. They say that this designation would be a stigma on coal ash and would ensure there would no longer be any market for recycled coal ash, but that argument is just plain wrong. Hazardous labeling and restrictions on beneficial reuse are simply not at issue. When EPA issued its proposed coal ash rule, the agency offered a couple of alternatives. Neither of these proposals would involve labeling coal ash as ``hazardous.'' Quite frankly, even if it were designated ``hazardous,'' that doesn't mean it can't be reused. It can be reused. Third, we've been told that we must pass this legislation because it's a careful compromise from the version of the last Congress. Well, I'm not sure who was in that compromise because the bill is even worse than the bill from the last Congress. The Republicans have refused to work with the Democrats on the committee. There's no bipartisan coal ash bill in the Senate. And the administration has identified five problems with the bill that cause it to fall short of protecting human health and the environment. Let's focus on reality. This debate is not about a ``war on coal'' or putting a stigma on coal ash. It's not about whether State governments are inherently better than the Federal Government. It's not about job- killing regulations. This debate is about whether or not we're going to allow coal ash disposal sites to contaminate our water supplies and threaten human health. If this bill is enacted, coal ash disposal sites will continue to pollute our groundwater; and once contamination is confirmed, well, this bill would allow it to continue for another 10 years--and do nothing. Then, after that, they might even continue it for another indefinite period of time. So it will continue to pollute groundwater, the water we drink, and our water supplies and our water sources. This bill says that a dump site that is contaminating groundwater today can pollute for 10 years--more arsenic, more mercury, more lead. Is that what Members of the House want to vote for? If the owners of the polluting structure can't control their contamination within 10 years, this bill says States can give them even more time to keep polluting. New information released yesterday reveals that three-quarters of existing unlined coal ash impoundments do not have the space at their existing location to construct an additional disposal facility. Those facts practically guarantee that if this legislation were to be enacted, communities across the country--many of them poor and minority--will simply have to endure contaminated water, polluted air, and the risk of catastrophic dam failure. And why? For states' rights, where the States already have the rights? It's really for polluter rights. And polluters do not have and should not have a right to pollute our water supplies. This can be handled effectively through a serious piece of legislation that will make clear that public health protection must be enforced. I urge my colleagues to tune out the special interest misinformation that seeks to weaken our laws and prolong pollution, and oppose this legislation. No matter how you voted in the last Congress, this bill is worse; and I urge Members to vote against it today. I reserve the balance of my time.