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

Floor Speech

Mrs. CAPITO. I thank my colleague on the Rules Committee from South Carolina.

I would like to ask the gentleman from Massachusetts who's been talking a lot about the jobs bill and the President's jobs bill, and my question to him is: If it's such a great jobs bill, why does it only have three cosponsors on the bill? I don't think that says much for the emphasis on your side of the aisle or in this whole House behind the President's jobs bill.

But today I want to rise in support of the rule of H.R. 2273, and I want to congratulate my colleague from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley) for his very dutiful work in this area. To me, this legislation is in response to the EPA's ideological war on Appalachian jobs.

The EPA is intent on regulating coal as a hazardous material. It is a wrongheaded move, given that the material has been used in household construction for years.

This bill simply allows States to regulate coal fly ash under their long existing solid waste disposal programs. This bill is environmentally and economically responsible because it allows the EPA to set enforceable minimum standards but leaves ultimate regulations and enforcement to the States, where it belongs.

If the EPA is permitted to regulate coal ash as a hazardous material, it could have a devastating effect on my State's economy. We generate 97 percent, maybe up to 99 sometimes, of our electricity from coal naturally, because we're a very large coal producer.

Regulating this as a hazardous waste would result in less coal use and would throw thousands of coal miners out of their jobs. Electricity prices would skyrocket, which would hurt manufacturers and households.

I just think that we're talking about jobs. Let's talk about creating jobs, but let's not destroy 316,000 jobs in the process of this regulatory regime that we've seen over the last several years. We know from the EPA's own statements that they don't really consider job loss or economic loss when they put forward these onerous provisions, so we cannot afford to let the EPA put more Americans out of work.

I support the rule and the underlying legislation.

Source