Rep. Sam Graves (R-6) has always struck me as a typical 21st century Missouri GOP pol: for limited government except when he isn’t, opposes government handouts except for his friends, willing to toe the accepted rightwing rhetorical line no matter how absurd, and rarely if ever challenges party leadership. The archetypical “Fox” Republican, as he has been dubbed, he chairs the House Small Business Committee where he’s a predictable quantity, opposing what he terms “handouts,” taxes, and business regulation. As you might guess, he’s approved of by conservative groups like the Chamber of Commerce although spokesmen for more pragmatic business organizations have suggested that he “often puts ideology over the practical needs of small businesses,” as when he opposed the $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund (SBLF).

My impression of Graves has been that in general while there’s lots to dislike, there’s little of real substance in the tired boiler-plate he dishes out – although he did hint at a proclivity toward the more exotic forms of GOP ideology back in 2002 when he took on some teenagers in Blue Springs, Missouri, gifting the city with a a $273,000 grant to fight “Goth culture.” Not surprisingly, at least half the amount was later returned “because of a lack of interest — and the absence of a real problem.”

All of which left me a little flummoxed when I read today that Graves has taken on the role of a GOP David and aimed his slingshot at the rightwing’s favorite Goliath, the EPA:

Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO) introduced a bill on Wednesday that would halt all EPA rules that are currently in the works and prompt a review of all previous EPA regulations. H.R. 5034, titled the Stop the EPA Act, would also require Congress to approve all previous and new regulations that cost $50 million or more. Under the bill, any that aren’t approved by Congress won’t become law.

“My legislation will give the American people a voice in the regulator’s room when the President and the EPA try and go around Congress,” Graves said in a statement. “EPA aggression has reached an all-time high, and now it must be stopped.”

Graves’ legislation was prompted by the EPA’s “Waters of the United States” proposal, which aims to clarify what streams and rivers are under the jurisdiction of the federal government, under the Clean Water Act. It’s also aimed at the EPA’s new rule on carbon emissions from power plants, a proposal that multiple other lawmakers have attempted to undermine or overturn in recent months. House Republicans introduced an EPA funding bill this week that would block the agency’s new power plant rule, and nine states have signed on to coal company Murray Energy’s lawsuit against the agency, claiming that the new rule constitutes EPA overreach.    

The claims Graves and comperes put forward about EPA overreach have been well refuted elsewhere – they’re patently false (see also here (pdf)). Worse, we’ve heard the same story over and over before. For example, as Think Progress points out, almost the same rhetoric was used in the GOP-led struggle to undo regulation of the lethally dangerous asbestos industry.

One commentator pointed out that Graves timed his new legislation to coincide with a Missouri visit by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, which he noted with lots of heroic chest-thumping and territorial gibbering on his Website. Which leads me to ask: does this new, aggressive Sam Graves have anything to do with the upcoming August Primary? Not only has Graves’ district grown considerably in the wake of redistricting, incorporating new voters – it now takes in the entire Northern section of the state, including the Northeastern areas previously represented by Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-3) – he also has three primary challengers, at least two of whom, Brian Tharp and Christopher Ryan, seem to  coming after his right flank, which, no matter how haltingly they may be limping toward it, has to resonate somewhat in these days after the fall of Eric Cantor. How better to show up your GOP opponents than to launch a few stones, no matter how feeble, at the heart of the GOP’s favorite regulatory beast.

AFTERTHOUGHT:  It occurs to me that Blaine Luetkemeyer actually established himself in his erstwhile Northeast district through lots of shrill anti-EPA rhetoric and climate change denialism. Seems to have gone over big with the Farm Bureau types up there. Think Sam wants the big-ag folks to know he’s a real Luektemeyer soul brother?

I’m assuming that you’ve read about the massive chemical spill last month that contaminated  water in West Virginia. Weeks later, the 300,000 residents of the Kanawha Valley still can’t get a straight story about whether or not it’s okay to drink the water. No matter how you try to spin it, it’s clear that this event occurred because of under-regulation as well as wilful lack of enforcement of the few regulations that are actually on the books. It’s not as if the risk wasn’t known since “the U.S. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement warned in a 2009 report that state environmental regulators were not taking effective action to reduce spills from coal mining operations.”

Today, I’m sure that you will be as thrilled as I was to learn that there’s now a Missouri angle in West Virginia’s on-going water contamination story. Namely, an operation of St. Louis based Patriot Coal, the Peabody Coal spin-off, experienced a coal slurry spill that released more than 100,000 gallons of coal slurry poured into an eastern Kanawha County stream.  

Although at this early point the spill seems to be much more limited than the earlier one,  officials described it as having a “significant environmental impact.” It’s worth noting at this juncture that there are indications of laxity on the part of Patriot Coal:

A slurry line ruptured at the Kanawha Eagle Prep Plant near Winifrede, W. Va., south of Charleston, between midnight and 5:30 a.m. Tuesday, the state agency said. Workers shut down slurry pumps after the break was discovered and the spill was reported to authorities just after 7:30 a.m., the agency said. Coal slurry contains solid and liquid waste from the coal preparation process.

Dale Petry, director of emergency services for Kanawha County, told the Charleston Gazette that the spill should have been reported more promptly. “I need to know about it a little bit sooner,” he said.

State regulators said the chemical company responsible for the Jan. 9 MCHM spill did not promptly report the incident and did not take effective measures to control the spill. State and federal officials have been harshly criticized by health experts and local residents, among others, for inconsistent and confusing statements about the safety hazards of the chemical spill.

It’s also worth noting that Patriot Coal is not friendly to the idea of environment regulation. The company, which has been in bankruptcy, attributed its problems – along with efforts to stiff its union employees by cutting retirees pensions – at least in part, to the onerous burden imposed by “environmental regulation.” In case you’re inclined to feel sorry for Patriot Coals’ hard luck story, you should also be aware that at the time they were also trying to get the bankruptcy court to approve of bonuses for the company CEOs that ranged from between 11 and 45 percent of their salaries.

It’s also worth noting in passing that Missouri Republican Senator Roy Blunt is among the four  politicians who received the biggest campaign donations from Patriot Coal in 2010 (along with failed candidate Todd Akin). Blunt is pretty blunt, so to speak, about how he regards environmental regulation; he doesn’t like it. He’s a frontline fighter against EPA regulations. Last year he sponsored the Regulatory Improvement Act of 2013, which a press release defined as “legislation to streamline, consolidate, and repeal onerous and costly government regulations in order to reduce compliance costs, encourage growth and innovation, and improve competitiveness.” A Wall Street Journal op-ed declared that it would “liberate American business.” Although Blunt claimed that the law would not be used to constrain environmental protections, he used tactics similar to the provisions of the bill to try to neutralize the regulatory function of the EPA.

What I would suggest is that next time you hear coal company CEOs and their paid-for politicians jawing about “onerous” environmental regulation that they claim stifles innovation, job growth, competiveness, mom and apple pie, you stop and think about those folks in West Virginia who have been living with contaminated water since Jan. 9th and still don’t know when or if the situation will improve. Also, maybe give a thought to Patriot coal, which just added a fillip of injury to the greater insult suffered by the citizens of West Virginia.

Update:  Think Progress has photos of the Patriot spill – pretty ugly stuff.

I’ve always said that when GOP Senator Roy Blunt is involved, look for a money motive – usually campaign finance if memory serves me right. Most recently, however, Blunt is gearing up to defend some of that wasteful, special interest, pork spending that, nominally at least, raises the hackles of good financial conservatives. Specifically, he’s threatening to block the nomination of Gina McCarthy, the President’s choice to head up the EPA, becoming the latest GOP Senator to resort to extortion.

How is this either extortion or defending pork? Blunt is proposing a quid pro quo. Obama wants McCarthy as EPA Head. Blunt wants quicker action on the St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid Floodway project where repair of a 1,500-foot gap in the levee came to a stop because of what KMOX designates technical problems with the project’s Environmental Impact Statement. Unfortunately, in this case, the phrase “technical problems” understates the situation. Coming in at about $100 million of that taxpayer money GOPers claim to be so protective of, even the Army Corp of Engineers, well-known to love an expensive boondoggle, had nothing nice to say about this project, labeling it “an economic dud with huge environmental consequences.”

Michael Grunwald adds:

“Huge” was putting it mildly. Corps documents suggested the project would drain more acres of wetlands than all U.S. developers drained in a typical year, cutting off one of the last swath of Mississippi River floodplain that was still connected to the river. The Fish and Wildlife Service warned that it “would cause substantial, irretrievable losses of nationally significant fish and wildlife resources, and greatly diminish rare and unique habitats in southeastern Missouri.” And the mitigation plan was a joke.

“Dud” was also putting it mildly. The project was marketed as a flood-control initiative for the downtrodden community of East Prairie, Mo.; Congress even let East Prairie use its federal economic development dollars for the local cost-share. But Corps documents showed that East Prairie, which flooded once every ten years before the project, would still flood once every ten years after the project. The main economic benefits would accrue to large landowners in the New Madrid floodway, who would get federal flood protection for their federally subsidized corn and soybeans. And the cost to taxpayers was so high that the Corps still had to use an interest rate from the project’s original inception in 1954 to nudge the benefit-cost ratio above 1 –  to a grand total of 1.01.

Hmmm … “benefits accrue to large landowners” … maybe Blunt is actually hoping to grease the old campaign coffers after all.

To be fair, Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill has also indicated that she would like this piece of wasteful spending expedited as well. Of course, McCaskill regularly puts common sense and her worries about wasteful government spending aside when she needs to show Missourians that she will fight for what they might, at first blush, take to be to be in their interests, no matter how mistaken they may be or how much damage it may do from a wider perspective. Remember when she sided with coal interests and helped squash cap-and-trade legislation because she feared somewhat higher energy prices would be laid at her door come election time? But at least this time, so far at least, she hasn’t been willing to hold the nominating process hostage to Missouri pork. So far acts of legislative terrorism are still a GOP speciality.

 

Rep. Todd Akin (R-2) takes umbrage regularly. Social trends, government, what-have-you, they all get him worked up. And what does he do about it? Often he writes letters. Sometimes his letter-writing zeal makes us laugh. Just consider that, Akin, one of the serious, for-realsies, candidates for the Senate of the United States actually seems to believe that the EPA is flying spy drones across Missouri farmland? According to Rep. Akin, the EPA wants to harass farmers. And, of course, he wrote the EPA a letter expressing his how deeply “disturbed” he was about this silly, totally false, right-wing, boogy-man story.  

Akin’s letters aren’t always so funny, as Michael Bersin’s recent post shows us. Bersin quotes from a letter that Akin, together with two of his House colleagues, wrote to the Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta. In the letter the three alleged that the Air Force is promulgating a “culture that is hostile toward religion.”

What prompted this outpouring from Akin – which was signed by 66 of his fellow travelers in the House, including as Bersin pointed out, Missouri’s Vicky Hartzler? Essentially, Akin is attempting to turn back the clock to a time when evangelical Christians enjoyed a privileged status in the Military and officials turned a blind eye to that situation.

Specifically Akin et al. are responding to corrective measures undertaken by the Air Force after numerous complaints from Air Force Academy cadet became public. The cadets accused the the school of discriminating against non-Christians and subjecting them to proselytizing and  “religious harassment.” Just to underline the point, 3,500 cadets responding to a survey indicated that they had heard slurs and jokes at the academy that they considered to be indicative of religious bias during their time at the academy. For the record, similar complaints have also been increasingly surfacing in other branches of the military.

The Air Force, to its credit, investigated the complaints and in 2005 adopted guidelines that stipulate (quote via The New York Times):

Supervisors, commanders and leaders at every level bear a special responsibility to ensure their words and actions cannot reasonably be construed as either official endorsement or disapproval of the decisions of individuals to hold particular religious beliefs or to hold no religious beliefs.

These are the words of a the “culture that is hostile towards religion”?. If you don’t read the text of the letter , Akin’s statement of his goals seem quite compatible:

When our sons and daughters join the military, they are not signing away their First Amendment right to religious liberty. Unfortunately, it seems that some parts of the military are intent on prohibiting religious expression rather than protecting it. I hope that the Secretary of Defense will respond to this strong letter from over sixty Members of Congress by issuing clear protections for the religious liberty of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines.

To which I say, “Amen.” I expect the Air Force to continue in its efforts to model neutral and professional behavior for its young trainees, one in which Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists and what-have-you, feel free to pursue their religious faith in a way that respects their fellows’ diverse beliefs. And I am emphatically sure that this doesn’t happen when one religion is allowed to engage in triumphalist acts of the sort that Akin wishes the Air Force to permit. I’m glad that this seems to be exactly what the Air Force intends to continue doing:

An Air Force spokeswoman denied that the service is hostile to religion, and said it was dedicated to creating an environment where people of any belief system could prosper.

“Airmen are free to exercise their Constitutional right to practice their religion-in a manner that is respectful of other individuals’ rights to follow their own belief systems; and in ways that are conducive to good order and discipline; and that do not detract from accomplishing the military mission,” Maj. Jennifer Spires said in an email.

Given Claire McCaskill’s past behavior in regard to coal and the EPA, who’d have thought she’d come out on the side of the angels when the Senate voted on GOP legislation designed to block new regulations of toxic emissions from coal fired plants. Thanks to McCaskill and her like-minded colleagues, millions of Americans are less apt to die prematurely of asthma or other respiratory deiseases, cancer, and heart disease.

True, McCaskill is proposing to delay the implementation of the regulations in order to give the coal industry more time to comply. Nevertheless, in this case, her honesty about what is at stake is a world away from the nonsense coming from her GOP opposite numbers in Missouri.

Where McCaskill, right or wrong, retains some individual flexibility, her senate colleague from Missouri, Roy Blunt, is a lock-step GOP soldier. Blunt, who predictably voted to block the more stringent standards, is well-programmed when it comes to fighting “job-killing” regulations on politically friendly industries. According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Blunt cited studies estimating a $10 billion cost for industries across the country to comply with the rule. He argued that it presents an undue burden on states like Missouri that rely heavily on coal to generate electricity.

Analysis (pdf) provided by the Congressional Research Service, however, suggests that industry assessments that inform Blunt’s cost numbers are inflated:

EEI, NERC, and other recent reports describe scenarios and potential impacts of EPA rules, including projected need for additional power plant capacity or potential reliability problems, that depend on a number of assumptions such as the stringency of the rules or expected tight compliance deadlines, many of which differ greatly from what EPA has actually proposed or promulgated. Also, because most of the reports try to look collectively at EPA rules, to the extent a proposed or promulgated rule differs from some of these assumptions, it can be difficult to separate out one rule’s projected impacts from the report’s overall conclusions about multiple rules

So once again, Blunt’s dire pronouncements about job losses are basically empty.

Nor does does Blunt seem to be aware of – or at least willing to mention – the report published by Earth Justice, the American Lung Association, and Clean Air Task Force, which asserts that the new regulations will give us $281 billion a year in health care savings. As far as I’m concerned, 281 of anything trumps 10 of anything, anytime – but particularly when the money saved is also associated with the prevention of as many as 35,700 premature deaths a year.

As for McCaskill’s wannabe November opponents , John Brunner is on the record that he’d repeal “job-killing” EPA regulations. Apart, however, from affirming his Republican orthodoxy, he doesn’t seem to have anything more substantive to say.

Sarah Steelman, however, never fails to delight lovers of the ridiculous. She doesn’t think that the actual, trained scientists at the EPA are up to snuff, commenting that their data is “debatable or inherently flawed.” So there you have it from Sarah Steelman, environmental scientist. The only thing sillier were the comments from Steelman’s other alter ego, the motivational psychiatrist, who remarked that

I believe that much of the environmentalists’ agenda has little to do with preserving nature and wildlife, and is actually more directed at regulating businesses and inhibiting economic growth.

Because scientists just inherently love inhibiting economic growth. Note also how the issue becomes “preserving nature and wildlife” with no mention of human life, which is what is actually at stake with the new EPA regulations? Steelman’s got that GOP talent for misdirection down pat.

The real winner, though, is Rep. Todd Akin. While Akin is most likely capable of knee-jerk opposition to just about any regulation imposed on the corporate bastions of “market freedom,” he is, when it comes to the EPA, probably more concerned right now with those pesky EPA spy drones that have been flying over Missouri agricultural operations, which, as he informed the EPA’s Lisa Jackson in a recent letter, are “deeply troubling.”  

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) is, as always, relentless, regardless of the facts.

@RepHartzler Rep. Vicky Hartzler

Pres. Obama held a pep rally at the EPA yesterday so he could say “Thank you” for their good work. Talk about our of touch! 11 Jan

“…Talk about our [sic] of touch!”

It’s called projection.

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): playing disingenuous games with dust while Rome burns… (December 8, 2011)

Bill to ban phantom EPA dust rule approved by House panel

By David A. Fahrenthold and Juliet Eilperin, Published: November 2 | Updated: Thursday, November 3, 12:45 PM

Earlier this year, Republicans found what they saw as an ideal talking point to illustrate a federal bureaucracy gone batty.

The Environmental Protection Agency, they warned, was trying to regulate something only God could control: the dust in the wind….

….There was just one flaw in this argument: It was not true.

The EPA’s new dust rule did not exist. It never did….

[emphasis added]

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): town hall in Warrensburg, part 2 (August 12, 2011)

Representative Hartzler: ….Uh, EPA is out of control. They’re, they’re trying to regulate our greenhouse gasses, uh, I live out in the country on a gravel road, uh, always have, I, we farm and they’re trying to regulate dust as if it’s a hazardous waste. I mean, like, you can’t do that. Uh, if you go down a gravel road you’re gonna have dust. So that’s hurting jobs….

Yep, relentless, regardless of the facts.

Meanwhile, what does the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] do?:

Our Mission and What We Do

Our Mission

The mission of EPA is to protect human health and the environment.

EPA’s purpose is to ensure that:

 *  all Americans are protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn and work;

 *  national efforts to reduce environmental risk are based on the best available scientific information;

 *  federal laws protecting human health and the environment are enforced fairly and effectively;

 *  environmental protection is an integral consideration in U.S. policies concerning natural resources, human health, economic growth, energy, transportation, agriculture, industry, and international trade, and these factors are similarly considered in establishing environmental policy;

 * all parts of society — communities, individuals, businesses, and state, local and tribal governments — have access to accurate information sufficient to effectively participate in managing human health and environmental risks;

 *  environmental protection contributes to making our communities and ecosystems diverse, sustainable and economically productive; and

 *  the United States plays a leadership role in working with other nations to protect the global environment.

To accomplish this mission, we:

Develop and Enforce Regulations

When Congress writes an environmental law, we implement it by writing regulations. Often, we set national standards that states and tribes enforce through their own regulations. If they fail to meet the national standards, we can help them. We also enforce our regulations, and help companies understand the requirements.

Uh, that’s why the President of the United States tells them “thank you” for their good work.

That’s a good thing, unless, of course, you don’t like clean air, water, and land.

Cough.

Oh, brother:

@RepHartzler Rep. Vicky Hartzler

The House passed a bill to stop the runaway EPA’s crazy new proposed regulation regulating farm dust-another exp. of Washington’s over reach 6 hours ago

The reality:

AIR POLLUTION: Federal court upholds EPA’s rural dust rule

Robin Bravender, E&E reporter

Greenwire: Wednesday, February 25, 2009

A federal appeals court yesterday denied an industry request to order U.S. EPA to reconsider its decision to regulate dust in rural areas, a move that agricultural groups say could stifle farmers unnecessarily.

In its response to a host of legal challenges brought against the Bush administration’s 2006 standards for airborne soot and dust, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia refused to exempt the regulation of farm dust….

[emphasis added]

Uh, that one was during the Bush administration. This is now:

Bill to ban phantom EPA dust rule approved by House panel

By David A. Fahrenthold and Juliet Eilperin, Published: November 2 | Updated: Thursday, November 3, 12:45 PM

Earlier this year, Republicans found what they saw as an ideal talking point to illustrate a federal bureaucracy gone batty.

The Environmental Protection Agency, they warned, was trying to regulate something only God could control: the dust in the wind….

….There was just one flaw in this argument: It was not true.

The EPA’s new dust rule did not exist. It never did….

[emphasis added]

The House vote this afternoon:

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 912

     H R 1633      RECORDED VOTE      8-Dec-2011      2:44 PM

     QUESTION:  On Passage

     BILL TITLE: To establish a temporary prohibition against revising any national ambient air quality standard applicable to coarse particulate matter, to limit Federal regulation of nuisance dust in areas in which such dust is regulated under State, tribal, or local law, and for other purposes

—- AYES    268 —

Akin

Emerson

Graves (MO)

Hartzler

Long

Luetkemeyer

—- NOES    150 —

Carnahan

Clay

Cleaver

—- NOT VOTING    15 —

Remind us again, who’s in the reality based community?

What they’re not spending time on:

@RobertaSaidThat Deborah

Number of days of GOP control of the House of Representatives = 334. Number of jobs bills from the GOP House = 0. 1 hour ago

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) has gone all in on this for quite a while and she obviously isn’t letting go:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): town hall in Warrensburg, part 2 (August 12, 2011)

….Representative Hartzler: …above, you know, nine percent. And so that hasn’t worked out. So the other theory, uh, idea is to get more private sector jobs. And the way to do that is to talk to small business owners and say, and I have in the Fourth District a lot, say, why aren’t you hiring? What does Washington need to do to help you in your business so you go out and put more people to work. You know what they tell me? Get government off our backs. [applause] Leave us alone. So that’s more what I have been trying to do in the House is to push back on the things that are causing small business owners to not hire workers. One, regulations. There are way too many regulations that are stifling jobs. Here’s a few examples. Uh, EPA is out of control. They’re, they’re trying to regulate our greenhouse gasses, uh, I live out in the country on a gravel road, uh, always have, I, we farm and they’re trying to regulate dust as if it’s a hazardous waste. I mean, like, you can’t do that. Uh, if you go down a gravel road you’re gonna have dust. So that’s hurting jobs. We got, uh, EPA cement regulations, uh, supposedly causing eighty thousand jobs. They’re trying to make fly, uh, fly ash a hazardous material. Well, you know what that’s gonna do for our cement and for our roads and the costs? I mean, that’s ridiculous. This hasn’t been found to be hazardous. And, uh, the moratorium on no drilling is costing thirty-six thousand jobs, at least, in the gulf. So, let’s move those regulations out. What we’ve been doing is passing some bills to try to push back on that. Uh, I cosponsored a bill called the Bulb Act which says basically let Americans use whatever kind of light bulb they want. [applause][crosstalk] [inaudible]…

Voice: How many jobs did that create?….

“…Number of jobs bills from the GOP House = 0…”

Imperative that we contact McCaskill and Blunt ASAP.  Vote NO on S. 1751 that would weaken the EPA’s power to regulate toxic coal ash.  Missouri has some of the weakest environmental regs and inspections.  This bill would give the state Dept of Natural Resources even more authority to ignore our health concerns and kow tow to Big Coal, headquartered in St. Louis.

Vote could come any day.  House has already passed an equally disatrous bill.

McCaskill’s D.C. office (202) 224-6154

Fax at St. Louis office (314) 361-8649

Blunt’s office in D.C. (202) 224-5721

Did you see where our junior GOP Senator, Roy Blunt, tweeted a couple of weeks ago that he’s:

Glad to see reports EPA is finally heeding our call not to impose a ridiculous job-destroying regulation on farm dust

Except, of course, the EPA hasn’t heeded virtuous GOP calls to cease efforts to regulate farm dust, which Blunt’s cynical, carefully worded post implies. There was never any indication that the agency was contemplating doing so in the first place. The Republicans were just engaging, as they so often do, in much ado over nothing.

Even The Hill article Blunt cites notes that the belief that the EPA was going to regulate farm dust was the result of GOP “speculation” about the possible results of the review that, under the terms of the Clean Air Act, the EPA is obligated to perform every five years. The article even quotes an EPA spokesman who addressed the rumor mongering last August, stating that “this is a myth the administrator has debunked personally on several occasions.”

Roy Blunt, who is not a stupid man, knows this very well. But getting and keeping farmers all worked-up about those know-nothing, anti-farm regulators seems to work out well for cynical GOPers as well as for the anti-regulatory agenda of their corporate financial supporters.

@RepHartzler Rep. Vicky Hartzler

House just passed bill to keep American energy affordable by ensuring coal ash is not considered a hazardous waste by EPA. 2 hours ago

You first.