On the recordOctober 14, 2011
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate the comments of my colleague from California because obviously there is a recognition that we have been talking, we have been trying to get some bipartisan support. As tough as that may seem in this Chamber and in this Congress, there is a recognition that we're trying. I think the ranking member gave us an ``atta boy'' just by allowing that voice vote on the manager's amendment, and I appreciate that. Part of this debate is that if States are allowing any type of waste to affect their constituents, don't you think that the States are going to get involved? If you use the Maryland example, Maryland has aggressively changed its own permitting processes based upon those experiences. So they've done it. Again, States are closer to their people. I can imagine the calls State reps and State senators got when that occurred. The basic bill says coal combustion residual which doesn't rise to the level of toxicity should be treated as that in liners and the like. That's really the debate we have. The EPA's technical assistance which was placed on the ranking member's committee's Web site mentions that this requirement could be implicitly inferred based upon the drafting of the bill.…





