Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, I just wanted to make a correction for the record. Some people have suggested that it's going to be considered a hazardous waste site if they dispose of this waste, and we don't believe that's true. We don't want to treat it as if it were household garbage without the guarantees to protect the public health and the environment. It can be something in between. It doesn't have to be considered hazardous waste. And that is exactly the kind of proposal that we ought to be looking at. And to say that we're considering it hazardous waste is an incorrect statement. May I inquire how much time each side has?

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, the supporters of this bill claim that this legislation will save jobs. Their main evidence is a report by the Electric Power Research Institute that claims that regulating coal ash as hazardous waste would lead to the loss of 300,000 jobs, but this claim is wrong. For example, the EPRI study estimates job loss by assuming that there would be 100 percent reduction in recycling and beneficial reuse. This assumption is based on no analysis whatsoever, and it's at odds with a survey done by the National Precast Concrete Association, which shows that 84 percent of their members would continue to use fly ash even if the waste were to be regulated as hazardous. In fact, EPA has formally requested that EPRI issue a statement that corrects the misstatement and misrepresentations that were made in this report and which have been repeated here today. The EPRI study is flawed, should not be relied on. We need to reject these arguments that in order to have jobs we need to allow contamination of our groundwater and allow human health to be jeopardized by coal ash impoundments. I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from the State of Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time we have remaining?

Mr. WAXMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia, who just spoke, said that I was inconsistent because I voted for the Baldwin amendment in my committee, so I can't have my cake and eat it too. Well, I want to assure you that I don't want a cake made out of coal ash. Coal ash has a lot of chemicals in it that I think most people would understand raise a problem of toxicity--arsenic, antimony, barium, beryllium, cadmium, lead, mercury, hexavalent chromium, nickel, selenium, and thallium. These metals are toxic and pose both acute and chronic threats to human health and the environment. So don't give me a cake to eat made out of coal ash. It seems to me that what we're hearing, for example, from the gentleman from Illinois, that the waste in Kingston was not disposed of in a hazardous waste landfill, and he offered this as proof that these materials are not hazardous. Well, these materials contain these toxic constituents, and if they're not disposed of properly, they will harm human health and the environment. Proper disposal does not mean disposal in a hazardous waste landfill. It means disposal in dry landfills that have the necessary safeguards. Those safeguards are not in this bill. We've offered to work with the Republican majority to clarify this issue and to find a middle ground that I think in substance could solve those concerns. But they, again, are not interested in working with us, and so they're moving forward with a bill that does not live up to its billing. At this point I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), who is the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee that deals with these very issues.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much. You've made the claim that we're trying to define this and label it as hazardous, which is a stigma. I understand that and I agree with that point, but I don't think we ought to deny that there are in coal ash relatively high concentrations that are hazardous and that, if they're improperly managed, they could leach out and pose a substantial present or potential hazard.

Mr. WAXMAN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, your point is not accurate for existing impoundments; it would apply to future impoundments. And we think for existing impoundments they ought to have the lining and all the other protections as well.

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield myself the balance of my time. I just want to point out that neither of us wants the stigma of the coal ash being called hazardous because, in many ways and places, it can be reused, and it would be very important to do that. But we want to make sure that all of these sites have the adequate protections. I want to read a quote from EPA because people said EPA wants to label it as hazardous. They wrote: Many of these metals are contained in coal ash at relatively high concentrations such that, if coal ash were improperly managed, they could leach out and pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment. The risk assessment that was conducted confirms this finding, as do the many damage cases that have been documented. I seek to put into the Record a statement of administrative policy. The administration opposes this bill because it is insufficient to address the risks associated with coal ash disposal and management, and it undermines the Federal Government's ability to ensure that requirements for the management and the disposal of coal combustion residuals are protective of human health and the environment. I yield back the balance of my time and urge a ``no'' vote on the bill. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, October 12, 2011. Statement of Administration Policy H R. 2273--Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act (Rep. McKinley, R-WV, and 32 cosponsors) The Administration opposes H.R. 2273, as reported by Committee, which is insufficient to address the risks associated with coal ash disposal and management, and undermines the Federal government's ability to ensure that requirements for management and disposal of coal combustion residuals are protective of human health and the environment. The 2008 failure of a coal ash impoundment in Kingston, Tennessee, which spilled more than five million cubic yards of coal ash and will require approximately $1.2 billion for clean-up, is a stark reminder of the need for safe disposal and management of coal ash to protect public health and the environment. The Administration has assessed structural stability at active coal ash impoundments and has identified 49 units in 12 states as having a ``high hazard potential'' rating should they fail. The Administration supports the development, implementation, and enforcement of appropriate standards for facilities managing coal ash, while encouraging the beneficial use of this economically important material. Any approach to managing coal ash would need to include: (1) clear requirements that address the risks associated with the coal ash disposal and management; (2) consideration of the best science and data available; (3) adequate evaluation of structural integrity; (4) protective solutions for existing as well as new facilities; and (5) appropriate public information and comment. Because H.R. 2273 is deficient in these areas and would replace existing authorities with inadequate and inappropriate minimum requirements, the Administration opposes the bill.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. To be fair, this amendment does make a few positive changes to the legislation. It adds some requirements to recordkeeping, groundwater monitoring, and runoff controls. But as with the underlying bill, this amendment makes a lot of promises and it just doesn't deliver. Some of my colleagues believe they may have reached a major concession because this amendment adds a groundwater monitoring provision. And I'd agree, adequate detection and assessment monitoring is critically important to ensuring that when coal ash is disposed of we have the opportunity to protect groundwater from toxic contamination. But Members should be aware that this amendment moves all of the groundwater monitoring provisions from paragraph (c)(1) to paragraph (c)(2). The effect of this change is to allow any State to waive the groundwater monitoring requirements at their discretion. Fugitive dust has been talked about. This dust can pose a health risk because it is particulate matter that can lodge deep in the lungs and also because it can contain the toxic constituents of coal ash. The Republicans refused to include a provision to address this issue in committee. So some of my colleagues may be pleased that this amendment includes a provision that mentions fugitive dust from coal ash disposal. But this provision is almost a tautology. The provision merely states that the States have the authority to require dust control measures if the State determines it to be appropriate. The amendment does not require State permit programs to include dust controls. It does not provide authority for EPA to require dust controls when it is the implementing agency. If a State determines that nothing is appropriate, then nothing is required within that State. Like the underlying legislation, this amendment is long on appearances but short on substance. Most importantly, this amendment fails to make improvements where improvements are most necessary. First, the amendment fails to establish a legal standard that the coal ash permit program has to meet. Second, the manager's amendment fails to ensure the structural integrity of wet impoundments. The amendment makes clear that wet impoundments can be used to hold storm water by exempting them from run-on control requirements, but it falls short of requiring that they be designed to safely hold that storm water. EPA has concluded that this legislation excludes several key design requirements that relate to long-term structural stability of the surface impoundment. Third, the manager's amendment fails to ensure appropriate criteria for the disposal of coal ash. Rather than addressing the concerns raised by EPA about the agency's ability to revise and tailor disposal criteria to address the risks posed by coal combustion residuals, the amendment further limits EPA's potential role in helping the State by preventing EPA from offering technical assistance to States without a request from the head of a lead State agency. And, lastly, the amendment does nothing to authorize meaningful review of State programs. EPA has raised extensive concerns about their ability to review State programs under this legislation to ensure protection of human health and the environment, and this amendment does not address those concerns. The administration has announced its opposition to the legislation, stating that this bill is ``insufficient to address the risks associated with coal ash disposal and management, and undermines the Federal Government's ability to ensure that requirements for management and disposal of coal combustion residuals are protective of human health and the environment.'' Nothing in this amendment fixes those concerns. Madam Chair, I'm willing to accept this amendment. It doesn't address the problems with this bill, but it doesn't make the bill appreciably worse. So I wouldn't oppose the amendment, but I don't want people to think that this amendment lives up to the billing that it really makes this bill good enough. So I will not oppose it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

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

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker and Members of the Congress of the United States, this bill is an absolute disgrace. With all the problems we have in this country--economic crisis, poverty levels at the highest we've seen in a generation, urgent needs for our schools, Americans still too dependent on foreign oil and imported energy--what does the Republican leadership bring up for us to debate? Yet another bill to limit women's access to reproductive health services. Now, I say another bill because the House has already adopted H.R. 3, and that bill codified into law that no Federal dollars would be used to pay for abortion services, whether it's under Medicaid, the traditional Hyde amendment, or the D.C. appropriations, or for Federal employees, or women who serve in the military, or those who get subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. What this bill seeks to do, pure and simple, is to destroy one of the most hard-fought but delicately balanced sections of the Affordable Care Act, and that was on abortion. This section came about as a result of a lot of hard work by many Members in the House and the Senate-- particularly Senator Nelson, whose pro-life record speaks for itself, clearly and unequivocally. The law prohibits the use of Federal funds for abortion. It keeps State and Federal abortion-related laws in place. It ensures that those whose conscience dictates against abortion are protected and not discriminated against. And it went further. The language in the Affordable Care Act said you cannot use any subsidies to pay for your abortion insurance coverage; you had to use only private personal dollars. Well, this bill would restrict insurance plans' flexibility regarding abortion coverage, and I think it will result in a virtual shutdown of private coverage for this service for everyone. This legislation also takes away the Affordable Care Act's limited anti-discrimination protection for those providers whose conscience dictates that women should have access to abortion. It's a legal and, in many cases, an appropriate medical service. Among the most disturbing features of the Pitts bill is it would say that health care providers would no longer be required to provide emergency services as required under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, commonly known as EMTALA.

Mr. WAXMAN. In other words, a woman who may die from her pregnancy, if she is in for emergency services, the doctor can refuse to give her emergency services if his conscience would prohibit performing an abortion. Taken as a whole, this bill is a full-throttled assault on women's health and a woman's right to choose. It's not what the American people voted for last November. We should be focusing our attention on jobs, economic growth, and the numerous pressing and important challenges we face as a Nation. This is a shameless, just a shameless bill. I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 358.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, to provide qualified support of the U.S.-Panama Free Trade Agreement (FTA), and to express my opposition to the U.S.-Colombia and U.S.-South Korea Trade Agreements. The original Panama and Colombia FTAs, negotiated by the Bush Administration, were fatally flawed. The Democratic congressional leadership negotiated substantial improvements to the accords, among them ensuring that generic medicines could be made available in these countries at the same time as the United States. There is no reason that intellectual property rules in free trade agreements should force our trading partners in the developing world to wait longer than the United States to have access to affordable medicines, and I strongly believe that we need to make more progress on this issue in future agreements. I am deeply concerned that the proposal USTR has made for the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) may result in generic medicines becoming available in TPP developing countries later than in the United States. Denying poor countries access to generic competition can mean the difference between life and death. I am prepared to support the Panama FTA, consistent with my previous support of the Peru FTA, because the issue of access to medicines is positively addressed; and I will continue to argue that, at the minimum, the precedent in the Peru and Panama treaties be followed. Unfortunately, I regret I am unable to support the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Colombia is a great friend of the United States. We are strong economic partners and have strong cultural ties. And Colombia has been an important ally at the UN Security Council, opposing the unilateral bid for statehood for Palestine. But this trade agreement contains a fatal flaw at the heart of what trade must be about: raising the quality of life for the people living and working here in the United States and in the countries we trade with. Jobs, job security, and labor rights are fundamental to a successful trade relationship. Regrettably, Colombia has had a long and painful struggle with labor abuses and violence and retribution against labor rights activists. Although Colombia has taken significant steps to reform labor and workplace protections by carrying out the Action Plan on Workers Rights that was negotiated with the help of the Obama Administration, the plan is not yet fully implemented and significant benchmarks for labor reform are still outstanding. Moreover, the Republican leadership has refused to allow the Action Plan to be referenced in the FTA implementing legislation we are voting on today. If the Action Plan had been incorporated directly into this legislation, I would have been inclined to vote for the Colombia FTA today. But this inherent deficiency prevents me from supporting this measure for a country I respect and value as a strategic ally. Finally, I regret that I am unable to support the U.S.-South Korea Trade Agreement. I am pleased that the agreement makes transformative progress in copyright protection by strengthening enforcement against counterfeits and extending intellectual property protection to the digital and online domain. But the agreement includes a harmful provision exempting American vehicles from South Korea's progressive greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards. I have consistently believed in the principle that trade agreements negotiated by the United States should not compromise environmental standards in the US or abroad, and I believe the provisions in this FTA, by weakening South Korea's overall environmental benchmarks, sets a dangerous precedent for future FTAs. The global market for automobiles increasingly demands more fuel efficient and environmentally friendly vehicles. We should strengthen the competitiveness of our auto industry by raising our own standards, not by weakening those of others. I am disappointed that further progress on these core issues could not be made as the Colombia and Korea trade agreements were finalized. I remain committed to strong economic ties between the United States and these vital markets in Latin America and Asia.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, this amendment wouldn't change the bill. This amendment simply says that mercury has the potential to be a neurotoxin that could affect children.

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, let me ask, if we had a unanimous consent request, could we change the amendment? As I understand it, we could.

Mr. WAXMAN. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair and my colleagues, I strongly oppose this bill on substantive grounds. It nullifies critical EPA rules to cut toxic air pollution from solid waste incinerators and large industrial boilers. It threatens EPA's ability to issue new rules that actually protect public health by forcing it to set emission standards based on an industry wish list. And on top of that, it allows polluters to avoid compliance with the new rules indefinitely. That is enough for me to vote ``no.'' I think this is a very bad bill. But this bill has another mark against it because it does not comply with the Republican leadership's policy for discretionary spending. Some people may think, so what? Why make an issue of this? The simple fact is that the Republicans established a set of rules for the House at the beginning of the Congress, and they aren't willing to play by those rules. When Congress organized this year, the majority leader announced that the House would be following what's called a discretionary CutGo rule. When a bill authorizes discretionary funding, that funding must be explicitly limited to a specific amount. And the leader's protocols also required that the specific amount be offset by a reduction in an existing authorization. This bill violates those requirements. First, the bill does not include a specific authorization for EPA to implement the bill's provisions. EPA will have to start a new rulemaking for boilers and incinerators and follow a whole new approach for setting emissions standards, and that's going to cost money. CBO-- who is the usual referee on these questions--has determined that H.R. 2250 does in fact authorize new discretionary spending. CBO estimates that implementing this bill would cost the EPA $1 million over a 5-year period. But the bill does not offset the new spending with cuts in an existing authorization. That's a clear violation of the plain language of the Republicans' CutGo policy. I know what my Republican colleagues are going to say because they said it last time we were considering legislation. They will argue that this bill doesn't create a new program. They'll say that EPA can use existing funds to complete the work mandated by the bill. But that's not how appropriations law works. Anyone familiar with Federal appropriations law knows this and the Government Accountability Office or the Congressional Budget Office can confirm it. H.R. 2250 does not include an authorization, but that does not have the effect of forcing the executive branch to implement the legislation with existing resources. To the contrary, it has the effect of creating an implicit authorization of such sums as may be necessary. Now, the Republicans have been against setting authorizations of such sums as may be necessary because they wanted a specific amount, and they wanted an offset. My amendment would simply ensure that the discretionary CutGo rule is complied with. It states that if this bill authorizes the appropriation of funds to implement its provisions without reducing an existing authorization of appropriations by an offsetting amount, then the bill will not go into effect. This amendment is about fairness. If I offered a bill that strengthened the Clean Air Act or cut global warming pollution, the Republicans would require my bill to meet the CutGo requirements. But because Republicans are eager to attack the Clean Air Act and weaken public health protections, all of a sudden their own protocols don't matter. And if they're not complying with CutGo because CutGo, as they've set it up, is infeasible and unworkable, they need to acknowledge that reality and change the requirements. I urge all Members to support this amendment. Let's hold the Republican leadership accountable to keep their word. I yield back the balance of my time.

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