My colleagues, the thing that is so confusing to me is that coal ash is often used as a substitute for Portland cement in concrete to lower the costs; it reduces the waste, reduces the greenhouse gas emissions, and we don't need to pass legislation to have that happen. But I want to point out that Portland cement is designated as hazardous. It's a hazardous chemical under the OSHA Hazard Communications rule. It's a hazardous substance under the Superfund amendments. It's a hazardous substance under Federal Hazardous Substances Act, and it's a hazardous material under the Canadian Hazardous Products Act. But Portland cement continues to be used extensively in concrete and transportation projects. The EPA is not seeking to call coal ash ``hazardous.'' They want to call it a ``special waste.'' But even if they called it hazardous, why would it not be used the way Portland cement is now used, even though that substance is designated as hazardous in all these other statutes? Mr. McKINLEY. Will the gentleman yield?
Share & report
More from Henry Waxman
I oppose this rider, which would block the Department of Energy from implementing or enforcing commonsense energy efficiency standards for lightbulbs. This rider was a bad idea 3 years ago when it was first offered, and it is even more…
May I inquire how much time we have on each side. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Kentucky has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Climate change is the biggest energy challenge we face, so before approving a multibillion-dollar energy infrastructure project that will last for decades, we need to evaluate its climate impacts. That is the standard the President rightly…
On rollcall No. 460, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Holt The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 3 printed in House Report 113-563…





