[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 154 (Friday, October 14, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H6934-H6959]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COAL RESIDUALS REUSE AND MANAGEMENT ACT
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.R.
2273 and to insert extraneous material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Denham). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 431 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2273.
{time} 1049
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2273) to amend subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act to
facilitate recovery and beneficial use, and provide for the proper
management and disposal, of materials generated by the combustion of
coal and other fossil fuels, with Mr. Yoder in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
{time} 1050
Mr. SHIMKUS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2273, the Coal Residuals
Reuse and Management Act.
Fifty percent of our Nation's electricity generation comes from coal.
This means that we need to do something to address the long-term
disposal issues presented by these wastes. This bill is a measured,
appropriate, protective response to the issue of coal waste generated
to safely, responsibly, and affordably provide heat to communities
across the country.
The trash we throw out daily contains everything from milk cartons to
household cleaning items and pesticides, all mixed and destined for the
same destination. The chemical characteristics of coal ash put it
somewhere in between these two extremes. For years, States have been
successfully managing these nonhazardous wastes through their municipal
solid waste programs.
Yet even though EPA has confirmed on multiple occasions that coal ash
does not trigger its own toxicity test to be labeled as hazardous,
regulation was proposed by the EPA in June 2010 that would do just
that. EPA's regulation would have prevented coal ash from being
governed under the municipal solid waste programs despite its
nonhazardous nature and EPA saying in its proposed rule that it
preferred the municipal solid waste option.
The results of EPA's regulations would have been devastating effects
on jobs, higher utility rates at home, and crippling of a very
successful emerging byproducts industry.
H.R. 2273 strikes the right balance to provide certainty to producers
and recyclers of coal combustion byproducts at a time when recyclers do
not have time to wait. It also facilitates a safe and appropriate
disposal and monitoring of coal combustion byproducts.
The bill establishes, for the first time ever, comprehensive Federal
standards specific to coal ash disposal. These new standards for the
management and disposal of coal combustion residuals are based on
existing Federal regulations issued by EPA to protect human health and
the environment.
H.R. 2273 provides a benchmark for States to regulate under their
existing municipal solid waste programs, which are already required to
meet this Federal baseline of protection. These standards will include
groundwater protection and detection and monitoring, liners at
landfills, corrective action when environmental damage occurs,
structural stability criteria, financial assurance, and recordkeeping.
EPA will continue to have an oversight role to ensure States are
meeting their obligations. EPA will review the contents of a State
permit program and determine whether it meets the minimum
specifications set in H.R. 2273. They will also review State
implementation of permit programs to make sure States are implementing
a permit program meeting the minimum specifications.
However, discretion will remain with the States to regulate coal ash
even more stringently than the Federal standards set in H.R. 2273. And
should a State fail to meet these baseline standards or decline to
regulate coal ash, EPA has the authority under the bill to come into a
State and operate a program.
H.R. 2273 received strong 3-1 bipartisan support when it was
favorably passed out of the Energy and Commerce Committee. We have
continued to work hard since then with colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to clarify and address additional concerns reflected in the
manager's amendment. This has resulted in a bipartisan product that
empowers States, saves jobs, controls public and private costs, and
protects people and the environment.
H.R. 2273 has endorsements by a diverse stakeholder community as well
from the Environmental Council of the States, State environmental
officials, the beneficial use community, labor unions, and a coalition
of regulated stakeholders.
Mr. Chairman, some of our colleagues are going to oppose this bill
based upon this information or misguided policy. That is unfortunate.
We will hear plenty about that in this debate. I urge Members to pay
attention to the debate as many of our Nation's environmental laws
already apply to the concerns being raised. More laws requiring the
same thing to be done that is required in other laws do not improve the
environment nor the law. We need to be serious about that point.
Most importantly, our economy continues to struggle and businesses
are trying to figure out how to get out from underneath the weight of
overly burdensome regulations. H.R. 2273 is a jobs bill that gives us
yet another chance in the House to regulatory certainty and
unemployment relief with passage of H.R. 2273.
This bill protects the working men and women of this country. It
encourages jobs in road building and construction industries and
encourages an affordable and more secure standard of living in this
country for all Americans and their families. This bill is worthy of
all my colleagues' support.
I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 2273, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Today the assault on the environment in this body continues. Two
weeks ago the House voted to repeal the health standards in the Clean
Air Act and block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating
toxic emissions from power plants. Earlier
[[Page H6935]]
this week, we voted to block EPA from regulating toxic emissions from
cement plants. And yesterday we voted to block the EPA from regulating
toxic emissions from incinerators. Today we'll vote on whether to stop
EPA from regulating toxic coal ash.
On December 22, 2008, a coal ash impoundment in Kingston, Tennessee,
burst, releasing 5.4 million cubic yards of toxic sludge, blanketing
the Emory River and the surrounding land and creating a Superfund site
that could cost up to $1.2 billion to clean up.
Last year, EPA proposed regulations to ensure stronger oversight of
coal ash impoundments in order to prevent disasters like the one in
Kingston and to prevent groundwater and drinking water from the threat
of contamination. Today we are voting to stop EPA from acting.
The agency had proposed two alternatives for regulating coal
combustion residuals: One proposal was to regulate these wastes under
subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA, as a
hazardous waste. The other proposal was to regulate under subtitle D of
RCRA as a nonhazardous solid waste.
Under both proposals, there would be a minimum Federal standard
developed to protect human health and the environment. Those standards
would address wet impoundments, like in Kingston, and would also ensure
that basic controls like the use of liners, groundwater monitoring, and
dust control meet a minimum level of effectiveness.
But the legislation that is being brought to the floor today blocks
both of these EPA proposals. It replaces those proposals with an
ineffective program that won't ensure the safe disposal of coal ash.
At hearings in the Energy and Commerce Committee, we heard testimony
about the devastating impacts contamination from coal combustion waste
can cause. We learned of contaminated drinking water supplies, of
ruined property values. We've learned about improper disposal of coal
ash presenting catastrophic risks from ruptures of containment
structures and causing cancer and other illnesses from long-term
exposure to leaking chemicals.
But this legislation does not reflect what we learned about the
dangers of improper disposal of coal ash. Under each of our
environmental laws--until the Republicans repeal them--Congress has
established a legal standard when delegating programs to the States.
That was done, by the way, on bipartisan votes.
These standards are the yardstick by which it is determined whether a
State's efforts measure up. They ensure a minimum level of effort and
protection throughout the Nation. This approach has worked well because
it prevents a race to the bottom by the States.
But this legislation does not include any legal standard at all to
establish a minimum level of safety. As a result, the public can have
little confidence that this legislation, if enacted, will result in
increased safety. And to the extent new safety requirements are
established, nearly all of them can be waived at a State's discretion.
This legislation appears to create a new program for the safe
disposal of coal ash. But the decisions of whether or not to provide a
safe disposal or whether or not to protect groundwater or whether or
not to protect against toxic dust blowing off disposal sites will
remain State decisions. There will be no minimum Federal health
standard.
{time} 1100
The result will inevitably be uneven and inconsistent rules by the
States. Some States will do a good job, others will do a poor job. And
when they do a poor job, the public will pay the price--just as they do
today.
If this legislation is adopted, no one should be fooled. This bill
will not protect communities living near these waste disposal sites. It
won't make high-risk impoundments of coal ash safe. It won't stop
contamination of drinking water. And it won't create jobs. In fact, it
won't do much of anything.
Like the cement and incinerator bills that the House has debated,
this bill also violates the discretionary CutGo. CBO found the
legislation will cost EPA $2 million over the next 5 years. This cost
is not offset in the legislation. So once again, for the third time in
2 weeks, the Republicans are abandoning their discretionary CutGo rule.
This legislation is deficient in both process and substance, and I
urge all Members to oppose it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Latta), a primary mover on this bill.
Mr. LATTA. I rise today in support of H.R. 2273. Designating coal ash
as a hazardous waste, as the EPA proposed in June 2010, would raise
energy prices for families and businesses and destroy a large coal ash
recycling industry and all jobs associated with it. H.R. 2273 creates a
unique regulatory infrastructure at the State level that provides
strong environmental protection without all of the economic
consequences of a hazardous waste designation. I have an email from the
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency asking me to support this
legislation and allow them to do their jobs in Ohio.
If this legislation is not passed and signed into law, the EPA will
overturn 30 years of precedent and designate coal ash a hazardous
waste, despite findings from the Department of Energy, the Federal
Highway Administration, State regulatory authorities, and the EPA
itself that the toxicity levels in coal ash are well below the criteria
that requires a hazardous waste designation. In fact, in the EPA's May
2000 regulatory determination, they concluded that coal ash does not
warrant regulation as a hazardous waste, and that doing so would be
environmentally counterproductive.
It is estimated that meeting the regulatory disposal requirements
under the EPA's proposal would cost between $250 to $450 per ton, as
opposed to about $100 per ton under the current system. In 2008, 136
million tons of coal ash was generated. That means not passing this
bill could put an additional $20 billion to $47 billion burden on
electricity generators that use coal.
Energy costs aside, about 45 percent of the coal ash generated is
recycled, being used as an additive in cement, concrete, wallboard,
roofing materials, road-based fill materials, and snow and ice control.
While all of this is completely safe, designating coal ash as a
hazardous waste would halt these beneficial uses, which the EPA
estimates will lead to $16.7 billion in increased costs per year,
further damaging our economy. This legislation keeps those products on
the market and avoids job losses in those industries.
For those reasons, I support the legislation.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I thank our ranking member for allowing me
time to speak.
I rise to express my support for H.R. 2273, the Coal Residuals Reuse
and Management Act. As a Member of Congress from basically an oil and
gas and refinery and chemical plant area, for the last 8 months I have
learned more about coal ash than I think I have ever wanted to.
We know that coal combustion waste can be responsibly recycled and
beneficially used. Wisconsin recycles 97 percent of their coal ash.
Encouraging beneficial reuse of coal ash ensures less of it in
landfills, which is good for our environment and good for the economy.
The great debate with coal combustion waste is how do we ensure we have
enough environmental protections for coal ash disposal without
discouraging beneficial use.
As ranking member of the Environment and Economy Subcommittee of
Energy and Commerce, I believe the legislation before us today is a
vastly improved version of the legislation considered by our
subcommittee for markup, which would simply ban EPA from deeming coal
ash as a hazardous material. This legislation would further be improved
by the adoption of the Shimkus amendment, the manager's amendment,
later.
Currently, there is a patchwork of State programs to regulate the
disposal of coal combustion waste. H.R. 2273 for the first time
establishes comprehensive, minimum Federal standards for coal ash
management and disposal. Contrary to statements made, H.R. 2273 does
include groundwater monitoring provisions. The legislation
[[Page H6936]]
applies existing requirements for groundwater monitoring and corrective
action measures to coal combustion residuals. Facilities would be
required to monitor and respond to any releases. In addition, States
have the authority to require facilities that don't meet the standards
to close.
Additionally, this legislation includes a provision championed by my
good friend, Congressman Doyle from Pennsylvania, which would ensure
adequate closure standards for surface impoundments, including closure
plans and drainage standards. I know some Members have concerns about
the legislation, but we worked diligently with the majority and
stakeholders to make improvements to the bill. There has been an
assertion by some of my colleagues that the legislation does nothing to
protect the environment. EPA has no current authority, and this bill
for the first time sets those standards.
The assertions by some of my colleagues that this legislation does
nothing to protect the environment are misleading at best. EPA has no
authority now and this bill for the first time sets national standards.
No, this bill is not perfect. But part of legislating is moving the
ball forward and we cannot continue to spend months working on
legislation that is simply sent to the Senate to die.
I believe my colleagues on the Majority made significant improvements
since their first draft of the bill and a good faith effort to address
many of the concerns raised by the minority.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a member of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Harper).
Mr. HARPER. I rise today in support of H.R. 2273, the Coal Residuals
Reuse and Management Act. H.R. 2273 is on the House floor as part of
the Republican regulatory relief agenda to reduce job-killing
government regulation on businesses. I view the apparent intention of
the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate coal ash as a hazardous
material as another decision by the agency to regulate business without
the use of facts, science, or common sense. Everybody wants a clean
environment. We all want clean air and clean water, but decisions on
how to keep our environment clean should be based on science and not
political rhetoric.
My State relies on coal and coal ash for jobs and electricity. I have
heard from utilities in my district about the negative impact that
regulating coal ash as a hazardous material would have on ratepayers
and on employees. I am happy to support H.R. 2273 today to rein in an
out-of-control EPA and to protect the interests of my constituents.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I yield 3 minutes to our colleague and
committee member, Ms. Castor from Florida.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I thank my colleague from the Energy and
Commerce Committee for yielding me time.
In December of 2008, the communities surrounding the Tennessee Valley
Authority's coal-fired plant in Kingston, Tennessee, suffered one of
the worst environmental disasters in the Nation's history--5.4 million
cubic yards, or over 1 billion gallons, of coal ash sludge covered the
neighborhood after a dam break. This was along the Emory River. It
damaged 42 homes. That disaster raised a lot of questions and concerns
about how coal ash is stored all across the country. In that case, the
TVA had used an above-ground, unlined storage pond that broke loose
after a heavy rain.
Some States have appropriate storage standards, like my home State of
Florida. They're appropriate. But the problem is some States do not
have the appropriate standard, so I believe EPA was right to begin an
appropriate national review of guidelines for proper coal ash disposal.
The problem here is the GOP bill stops that effort in its tracks. The
GOP bill is too liberal and too permissive. I have relayed to EPA that
many actors in the field recycle coal ash material. In my hometown of
Tampa, we send a lot of coal ash for the building of the new Panama
Canal expansion. And it's used in wallboard. This needs to be
encouraged. We want to see the beneficial reuse industry flourish.
Recycled fly ash should not be labeled as hazardous, and I think it
shouldn't even be labeled as special waste, and I encourage the EPA to
take this approach. In fact, I proposed an amendment to support this
approach after discussion with industry leaders, but the Republicans
ruled it out of order.
{time} 1110
Without it, the GOP bill goes too far. They're abdicating their
responsibility to protect communities from disasters like Kingston. The
bottom line is that we all have a responsibility to ensure that coal
ash is disposed of in ways that protect communities across the country
and protect human health. The GOP bill does not take that approach and
does not take its responsibility seriously. It could allow a disaster
like TVA's Kingston catastrophe to happen again.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I will just tell my friend from Florida, H.R. 2273 includes
structural integrity inspection requirements on impoundments that do
not exist today. They allow only those facilities that are structurally
sound and operating in a protective manner to continue to operate.
In this Kingston debate, what is never mentioned is that in the
cleanup of the Kingston spill, all that waste went into nonhazardous
landfills because they were not hazards. This is really a debate about
hazardous and nonhazardous. EPA has numerous times ruled that coal
combustion residual is not hazardous. That's why there's confusion.
I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, also a member of the committee,
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).
Mr. OLSON. I thank the chair of the subcommittee.
Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 2273, the Coal Ash Residuals
Reuse and Management Act. By supporting H.R. 2273, I'm also rising in
support of American jobs and environmental protection, a concept that
may be lost on a few of my distinguished colleagues from the other side
of the aisle.
This piece of legislation will, for the first time, establish minimum
Federal requirements for the management and disposal of coal ash. Not
only will H.R. 2273 provide certainty for State regulators as well as
manufacturers that rely on coal ash as building material, it will keep
coal ash out of our landfills and prevent unnecessary hikes in
electricity rates.
EPA has delayed rulemaking because they're weighing two options: One,
continue to regulate coal ash as nonhazardous; or, two, ignoring
science to classify it as a hazardous waste.
EPA has already determined on numerous occasions that coal ash should
not be classified as hazardous waste. They came to that conclusion most
recently in 2000, over a decade ago, under the Clinton administration.
In fact, EPA's finding went even further, arguing that ``Regulating
coal ash as a hazardous waste would be environmentally
counterproductive because it would unnecessarily stigmatize coal ash
and impede its beneficial use.'' Meanwhile, due to the uncertainty
created by EPA's inaction on this rule, the coal ash industry is
crashing.
Regulating coal ash as a hazardous waste flies in the face of years
of scientific research and EPA's own findings. Coal ash as a hazardous
waste would force unworkable requirements on our electric utilities,
resulting in serious economic consequences for American job creators
and American families.
I urge my colleagues to vote for American jobs and a clean
environment. Vote for H.R. 2273.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to my
colleague and a member of the committee, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle).
Mr. DOYLE. Coal ash is a serious issue for this country and
especially for Pennsylvania. Nearly all of my constituents get their
power from coal, and with that power generation comes its byproduct--
coal ash. It's an unavoidable part of our power generation in
southwestern Pennsylvania.
And though the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has some of the toughest
coal ash disposal standards in the country, I have been convinced that
coal ash needs to be federally regulated under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, known as RCRA.
[[Page H6937]]
Now, we've had the opportunity to vote on the coal ash issue several
times this year. We've seen policy riders on appropriation bills and
legislation that tied the hands of the Federal Government to regulate
coal ash. I haven't supported a single one.
So let's be clear: I have no record of hamstringing EPA or limiting
environmental protections. But there's been a lot of half-truths flying
around about this bill, and I think we should clear things up. For the
first time, coal ash disposal will be federally regulated under RCRA
through programs run by the States. Though implemented by the States,
the permit programs will be developed according to Federal standards
from section 4010(c) of RCRA, the section that must serve as the
baseline for these State permit programs that require criteria
necessary to protect human health and the environment.
We've also heard this bill will create a ``race to the bottom''
whereby utilities will ship their coal ash to States with the least
stringent regulations. That's just not realistic. If this were a real
concern, utilities in Pennsylvania would already be doing this, as we
have very strict regulation of coal ash. But utilities in Pennsylvania
don't ship their coal ash out of State because it's just not
economically feasible to do so.
I'm pleased to hear good, informed debate this morning with important
points being made by both sides. We've made significant improvements to
this bill, and there is still more that can be done. But we need the
chance to move legislation that will for the first time allow us to
federally regulate coal ash. I believe this bill was the necessary
vehicle to move that goal forward, and I encourage my colleagues to
support it.
I yield to my colleague from Texas.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I thank my colleague.
I think what Congressman Doyle was saying was, we're doing something
here we don't do very often in this House: We actually have a bill that
came out of committee that has bipartisan support. It moved the bill to
where EPA does not have the authority under current law unless they
label it toxic coal ash so the EPA has oversight. We're giving them
oversight over what our States have been doing--in most cases, very
good.
That's why this bill is something we haven't done on this floor very
often in the last 10 months. We actually compromise and come up with
good legislation. And we hope the Senate will pass it.
Mr. SHIMKUS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R.
2273, the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act of 2011.
Unfortunately, this legislation is necessary because last June the
Obama administration proposed two new rules in its ongoing war on coal
that could cost tens of thousands of jobs and tens of billions of
dollars to our GDP. The two new rules are a departure from decades of
accepted practice of allowing States to regulate coal ash.
Furthermore, EPA's current actions fly in the face of two previous
EPA studies--one study from the Clinton administration--which found
that coal ash shouldn't be regulated by the EPA as a hazardous
material.
Now, keep in mind these new rules will not only negatively effect the
coal and the utility industries but also will lead to job losses and
increased cost for the infrastructure and construction industries.
Furthermore, coal residuals are a key component of many of the
materials used by these trades. If the EPA is successful in classifying
coal residuals as a hazardous material, the cost of the raw goods in
these vital industries would skyrocket.
This bipartisan legislation not only stops the onerous proposed rule
from going forward, but also allows States to regulate coal residuals
by using an existing and successful Federal regulatory program. This
compromise bill sets realistic and enforceable standards while leaving
the regulation enforcement to the States. In fact, State environmental
officials, including my home State of Ohio, see this type of regulation
as a model for the future because it provides strong health and
environmental protection with minimal Federal EPA involvement.
At a time when the President and the other side of the aisle are
stumping for their so-called jobs proposal, Madam Chair, I find it
confusing and ironic that this administration would propose rules that
will cost tens of thousands of job losses and will lead to the loss of
billions of dollars from America's GDP. This legislation will save the
administration from themselves by saving jobs while still protecting
human health and the environment.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support the legislation.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I just want to say to my good friends who
feel that we've got to move the bill forward and we've got to get a
better bill, I understand that, and this bill is going to move forward.
But for those who really want a good bill, we're not getting one out of
this House. It's better to vote ``no'' to show that you want a better
bill than to vote ``yes'' for the small changes that the Republicans
have given to some of our Democrats that may improve the bill on the
margins, but the bill is not good enough for an ``aye'' vote.
I still urge Members to vote ``no.''
At this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Connolly).
{time} 1120
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank my friend.
Madam Chairman, the House majority has bought yet another anti-EPA
bill to the House floor. Last week, the House passed legislation to
increase mercury and particulate pollution from cement factories,
poisoning fetuses and increasing the incidence of diseases such as lung
cancer and emphysema. This week, the House passed legislation to
increase mercury and particulate pollution from industrial boilers.
These follow some 125 other virulently anti-environmental bills,
riders, and amendments that the majority has already tried to pass this
year.
H.R. 2273, the legislation on the floor today, is but the latest
assault on the environment and public health. This bill would block the
EPA from issuing science-based standards to manage the disposal of coal
ash. Unfortunately, the majority rejected language, which had the
support of a number of utilities, which would have protected EPA's
authority to issue health-based standards under the Clean Water Act. If
the majority had protected rather than curtailed this authority to
issue regulations based on science, not politics, then I could support
the legislation before us today.
Mr. Waxman is offering an amendment which would protect the EPA's
Clean Water Act authority. If that amendment passes, then perhaps most
of us could vote for final passage of the bill.
Such standards clearly are necessary, or impoundments such as the one
in Kingston, Tennessee, would not be failing. When that impoundment
failed in Tennessee, it released a billion gallons of toxic sludge into
the Clinch River. Fortunately, that impoundment was located downstream
of most of the biodiverse portions of the Clinch, which contained
unparalleled populations of freshwater mussels and other aquatic
species. In fact, the Clinch has more species of freshwater mussels
than the entire continent of Europe.
According to the Nature Conservancy, ``The Clinch, Powell, and
Holston Rivers run nearly parallel courses to the remote mountains and
valleys of southwestern Virginia and northeastern Tennessee. These last
free-flowing tributaries of the Tennessee River harbor the Nation's
highest concentrations of globally rare and imperiled fish and
freshwater mussels.'' These watersheds are the most biodiverse regions
east of the Mississippi River, and among the top biodiverse places in
all of the United States. H.R. 2273 would increase the risk of coal ash
spills in the upper Clinch, Holston, and Powell Rivers, potentially
causing many species to go extinct.
Human health is also at risk as a result of poorly regulated coal
mining in Appalachia. Scientists from West Virginia University have
conducted extensive research on the human health impacts of coal mining
and local populations. They found that residents of coal mining regions
have significantly higher rates of chronic heart, respiratory, and
kidney illnesses. Coal mining regions of Appalachia have higher rates
of cancer and premature mortality.
[[Page H6938]]
The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Biggert). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Imagine if Teddy Roosevelt had allowed a
few gold miners in the Grand Canyon to block protection of that great
American landmark. Imagine if loggers and sheepherders had blocked
designation of Yosemite as a National Park. Today, we confront a
similar challenge--to protect one of America's great places,
Appalachia, in the face of special interest assault.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2273.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Before I yield time to my colleague from Tennessee, let
me ask the time remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois has 17 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from California has 13 minutes remaining.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Just to my friend from Virginia, I hope he will look at the manager's
amendment, because in the manager's amendment it beefs up the list of
constituents for groundwater detection and assessment monitoring
specific to coal combustion residuals. This is something we received
from your side of the aisle that they wanted more clarity. That's what
the manager's amendment does on runoff aspects of the Clean Water Act.
The other thing is, if the toxic sludge, as you had defined it, was
so toxic, why did it go into municipal landfills and not into toxic
landfills?
The reality is the cleanup materials did not go into toxic landfills.
So we just want to clear up some false statements here.
I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee,
Dr. Roe.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 2273. This bipartisan
bill will protect the beneficial use of coal ash while also providing
for consistent State regulatory authority to store and regulate coal
ash under the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
My home State of Tennessee has seen the problems coal ash can cause.
In December of 2008, TVA's coal-fired plant in Kingston, Tennessee, had
the largest coal-related spill in U.S. history. This terrible disaster
resulted in some 1.1 billion gallons of ash flooding parts of the
Tennessee Valley. So there's no question we must have proper oversight.
And, Madam Chair, I visited that site previously.
With that being said, the reality is coal ash is abundant and can be
economical and versatile. The use of coal ash keeps electric costs low
for the consumer and provides low-cost, yet durable, construction
materials. From 1999 to 2009, 519 million tons of coal ash were
recycled--38 percent of all ash produced. Reusing ash decreases
greenhouse emissions and also helps prevent spills that can result from
its storage.
The bill we're considering today ensures the safe management and
disposal of coal ash by ensuring existing regulatory standards are
enforced without interfering with State regulations and storage
standards. This will help prevent future disasters like the one in
Kingston because it encourages investment in recycling and reuse of ash
in a way that benefits contractors, consumers, and American job
creators.
The Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act is a bipartisan solution
to the challenges that arise from coal ash. It safeguards the consumer
and the environment without hurting the economy. It is imperative that
we pass this bill, because if we do not, the administration's proposed
regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act will move
forward to classify coal ash as hazardous, increasing costs for the
coal-fired plants, which would put thousands of jobs in jeopardy and
drive up electricity costs.
American job creators cannot afford another regulatory burden. I urge
my colleagues to support this bill.
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?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 12\1/2\ minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Illinois has 14\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, at this point I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
Mr. ELLISON. I'd like to thank the ranking member of the Energy and
Commerce Committee and the chair.
We're seeing a trend here in the House of Representatives, Madam
Chair, attacking the EPA and not working on jobs. This bill does
nothing to regulate coal ash in a way that protects the environment or
public health. This bill wants to give regulatory power to States, but
there is no national minimum standard for State permitting programs in
this bill.
The municipal solid waste standards used by this dangerous piece of
legislation are inadequate to protect our communities from dangerous
toxins. Many of the toxins found in coal residuals are simply dangerous
to public health and are known cancer-causing agents. Just a few of the
toxins found in coal ash include arsenic, chromium, lead, mercury,
nickel, and a bunch of other stuff that's hard to pronounce.
This bill will allow these toxins to enter our drinking water in
dozens of communities across the country. On top of releasing toxins
into our drinking water, H.R. 2273 does nothing to promote recycling of
coal ash. Instead, it promotes the indefinite storage of coal ash,
which furthers the leaching of dangerous carcinogens and neurotoxins
into our drinking water. Additionally, this bill denies the EPA from
instituting a deadline or meaningful cleanup standard for disposal
sites that have already contaminated groundwater.
It has been 40 weeks the Republican majority in the House has been in
the majority, and we haven't voted on a single jobs bill, Madam Chair.
This train of bills dealing with cement emissions, dealing with the
TRAIN Act, dealing with Boiler MACT rules--and now, today, coal ash--
suggests that the Republican majority believes that the problem to
creating jobs in America is that Americans want to breathe clean air
and drink clean water, and it's just too expensive to do.
{time} 1130
This is a false statement, this is not true, and I hope that we
reject this bill today.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Just to my friend from Minnesota, I would quote the United Mine
Workers letter that says: According to a June study, there's an
estimate of the 183,000 to 363,000 possible job losses if we do not
pass this bill. So for those who really want to effect, there will be--
I mean, this claim that this hurts the recycling when, then, you define
coal combustion residuals as ``toxic'' is nonsensical. It really makes
no sense.
If you really want to encourage recycling, this bill protects the
recycling industry. It protects coal, fly ash from going into concrete.
If you label this ``toxic,'' which is what EPA's trying to do, that's
very misleading. And I think even my friends on the other side are
having a hard time grappling with what the EPA's trying to do because
that's the direction we want to do, they want to move it to.
With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from
Illinois (Mr. Hultgren).
Mr. HULTGREN. I rise in support of this commonsense bill that is good
for jobs and the economy. I thank my good friend Congressman Shimkus
for his very important work on this bill.
What we're confronting here today is another classic example of EPA's
regulatory overreach threatening jobs and livelihoods across the
country. This is also an issue that concerns my constituents, as
thousands of jobs are in industries using coal combustion residuals.
But the jobs impact of this legislation is not limited to my district.
It's nationwide.
[[Page H6939]]
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this pro-
growth, pro-jobs bill.
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).
Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Chairwoman, it seems that hardly a day goes by in
this Chamber when the Republican majority fails to create jobs,
endangers public health, and deep sixes the environment, and today is
no different.
Coal plants are usually accompanied by coal ash ponds and dry coal
ash landfills, and they're disproportionately located in impoverished
areas. Two-thirds of all of the ash ponds in the United States are
located where household income is below the national median, according
to Earthjustice. What that means is that poor people don't have a voice
in what the majority is trying to do; and we can't rely on a voluntary
patchwork of State regulations, which is what this bill would have us
do.
Now, in my own home State of Maryland, we have a decent record of
environmental regulations, but I can't say that about our neighboring
States. We need a national way to look at how we're contaminating or
not our environments. The contamination of groundwater at the Gambrills
coal ash plant in Maryland resulted in the single largest fine ever
imposed by our State's Department of the Environment, and a $57 million
settlement for the affected homeowners and businesses.
The problem is that money can pay for medical treatment and
compensate for the loss of property value in the right way, but it
can't bring back health. It can't reverse the developmental
disabilities or preserve the sense of home for people who are
displaced.
Now, I said some of the affected homeowners in that settlement,
because even in this case we see discrimination. The neighboring
population of Odenton, Maryland, is a rural African American community,
and it's still battling contamination from the Turner Pit site
belonging to the same power plant. Their drinking water aquifers and
creeks feeding into the Patuxent River, which is an important source of
potable water for the entire metropolitan Washington region, remains
polluted.
They've seen no cleanup. They've yet to receive any compensation for
lost health and property values. What they got instead is a steady
supply of free bottled water, courtesy of the polluting power plant--I
mean, it's absurd--and an extension of a shopping mall to cover the
contamination site; not to cover the contamination, but to cover the
contamination site.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you.
What I'd like to say is that, given that we know that in poor
minority populations they have the worst health outcomes by any measure
and coal ash impoundments are disproportionately located in low-income
communities that are less likely to have medical access to insurance
and care, we have to be concerned. This body needs to be concerned. And
if we pass this bill, we will unfairly expose these vulnerable
communities to higher levels of threatening health and property risk
than the rest of the population.
I think, Madam Chair, we can do a lot better; and in this Congress,
we should be looking out for people, not failing to create jobs,
contaminating their water, and poisoning their air.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I just want to remind my colleagues that they will be interested to
know the EPA noted in its June 2010 proposed regulation for coal
combustion residuals that municipal solid waste rules provide an
appropriate, comprehensive framework for regulating coal combustion
residuals. That's from the EPA, the same EPA people say we're trying to
gut.
And I will continue to hold up the Veritas study that says, because
of the recycling aspect of coal ash that goes into concrete, if you
claim it to be toxic, you can no longer use coal ash in concrete for
roads and for bridges and for buildings. That's the debate. And then
when you tear down those structures, they would have to go in the toxic
landfills. I also remind my colleagues that, from the spill, none of
the spill cleanup went to toxic landfills.
With that, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from West Virginia (Mr.
McKinley), the author of the legislation.
Mr. McKINLEY. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of this
bipartisan, pro-job, pro-environment, pro-health legislation. After 30
years of debate, of charges and countercharges, we can finally get this
done.
Just as an example of the disparity and misrepresentation here, we
talked about mercury. That was discussed earlier. Fluorescent light
bulbs in our homes contain mercury in a higher concentration than coal
ash, but yet our fluorescent light bulbs are disposed of in a way that
we're going to take care of now under this bill.
In fact, there are two parts of this bill. The first part removes the
stigma of the EPA classifying fly ash as a hazardous material. Several
studies by the EPA have concluded time and time again that the chemical
characteristics within coal ash are nonhazardous.
We've already heard the advantages of the recycling.
But I just want to remind the gentleman from California that during
the subcommittee markup, he supported the Baldwin amendment that
prohibited the EPA from regulating coal ash as a hazardous material,
yet he continues to refer to coal ash as toxic. This is simply
unacceptable. One cannot have his cake and eat it, too.
The second part of the bill, which deals with disposal, was worked on
with Democrats, State agencies, and a cross section of stakeholders
during subcommittee, full committee, and before this bill came to the
House floor.
{time} 1140
Ultimately, should this legislation become law and new scientifically
based factors arise, this legislation will allow for the flexibility of
the States and the EPA to work together to adjust the coal ash program
accordingly. If a State has no program, fly ash impoundments will not
be permitted by the EPA until they do. If a State opts not to have a
fly ash program, the EPA will have primacy. If the government should
lower the drinking water standard at any time because of changes in
chemical characteristics such as those found in coal ash, then the
States will have to comply with those new standards.
But should a State, such as proposed in California, decide to lower
their standards below the federal level, then they have the option to
do that under the 10th Amendment.
H.R. 2273 simply allows for a flexible system, a working relationship
with the State and Federal Governments to carry out a long overdue coal
ash program at the State level with stringent requirements for liners,
groundwater monitoring, financial assurance, dam safety and integrity,
and most of all, protection of health and the environment. All of this
will be achieved with assistance, approval, and oversight by the EPA.
I ask all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan, pro-job
legislation.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time we have
remaining?
[[Page H6940]]
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 7 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Illinois has 8 minutes 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. MORAN. I thank the very distinguished leader from California (Mr.
Waxman).
Over 30 years ago, Congress accepted the legal responsibility to
protect human health, conserve our natural resources, reduce waste, and
ensure that waste is managed in an environmentally sound manner. That's
the underpinning of what this argument is about.
Now, every year, America generates about 61 million metric tons of
coal ash and slag and about 17 million metric tons of coal sludge from
utility and industrial boilers. Now, Mr. Waxman mentioned what's in
this sludge and slag, and that's why we're raising this argument,
because it contains all the chemicals Mr. Waxman referred to--arsenic,
chromium, cobalt, lead, and mercury. In fact, it includes radioactive
elements including uranium, thorium, and radium.
This material is very toxic. But we also know that coal ash, slag,
and sludge have a number of beneficial reuses in concrete, roads, and
roofing. And EPA is not trying to ban the beneficial reuse of coal ash.
In fact, EPA proposed two separate possible regulations so that you
could have a robust dialogue on the most effective means of coal ash
disposal. EPA wants to ensure that the ultimate decision is based upon
the best available science and technical data, and is taken with the
fullest public input. EPA had extensive public involvement--thousands
of public comments and eight public hearings around the country.
Now, this legislation would deprive EPA of the ability to use the
best available science in its decisions, and it would negate those
thousands of public comments that have been received since the rule's
proposal. It would block the current progress on federal safeguards
before the regulations have been finalized.
Now, what's the problem with the approach that has been made by the
other side? Well, it would create a patchwork of compliance with up to
50 different State-by-State regulations, and it would block federal
enforcement of what is clearly a national problem.
It's a national problem because States with lax coal ash disposal
requirements--and there will probably be economic competition to reduce
the requirements as much as possible--those States would be allowed to
pollute the streams and rivers of downstream States, and the Federal
Government would be powerless to do anything about it. That's why these
interstate impacts are the very reason federal regulation is
appropriate, necessary and, in fact, is our legal responsibility.
We understand that many people are concerned about this. Granted. And
a number of claims have been made that it would ban the ability to
develop concrete and road material and so on. But this rule has not
been finalized. EPA has received so many comments and suggestions that
it would seem that we are in a situation where we can structure a rule
that not only takes care of the concerns but protects the public
health.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. MORAN. I would have to say, as important as it is to protect
jobs, it's important to protect lives. We have a responsibility to
protect lives. You heard what's in this material. You can see why it's
a national responsibility. So let's fulfill that national
responsibility. Rely on EPA to use scientific findings. Let's protect
the public health and do the right thing and defeat this legislation.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
To my friend from Virginia, he is correct that some States have laxer
standards. In fact, your Governor sent us a letter in which I quote,
``H.R. 2273 is a realistic approach to dealing with CCR, although it
would require effort to implement in Virginia.''
So our point is this is going to help those States that are weak to
implement higher standards. That's just your Governor, but that's what
he says in a letter to us in support of this legislation.
If you label something ``toxic,'' it's not going to be reused, I can
guarantee you, just because of the threat to the coal combustion
residual community. The recyclers have no market. Who wants to build a
school with concrete when the EPA may, 6 months or a year from now,
say, That concrete is all toxic? So it's already had a negative impact
in that job sector, and we've quoted studies both back and forth.
{time} 1150
The manager's amendment requires an assessment for all of these
constituents that you identified. I would just highlight the fact that
just because it's a constituent doesn't mean it's hazardous.
This blue line is the hazardous level.
The green is the amount.
You could make the claim that there is hazardous material in Honey
Nut Cheerios. The question is: What's the amount? And that's what this
gets to is the amount.
EPA has consistently said this doesn't raise to the standard of
toxic. Even under the Clinton administration, when I served here, their
EPA said it doesn't rise to the standard. The fear of EPA involvement
is what's causing a problem in the recycling sector. Where is all this
waste going to go? It's going to fill up the landfills. In 2 years, all
the landfills will be filled up unless we continue to recycle this coal
fly ash.
Mr. MORAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHIMKUS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. MORAN. As we know, airstreams and rivers and other bodies of
water don't stop at a State's border. If that is the case, how is it
fair for one State to let that pollution go into a downstream State's
water? That's our concern.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Reclaiming my time, the manager's amendment that will be
debated will talk about, for the first time, an analysis on run-on and
runoff, which was the recommendation from the folks on your side of the
aisle for us to consider, which we have now included. We'll take that
up in the manager's amendment debate when we get to the amendment.
Mr. WAXMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHIMKUS. You have a lot of time, but I would be happy to yield.
But I do want to have time to close.
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
[[Page H6941]]
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. SHIMKUS. Reclaiming my time, that's why this new standard under
the municipal and solid waste act will have liners for the first time.
Right now, there are no liners. That's a better argument from past
years, but this is a fix. This is a fix to that issue of leaching out.
This is a fix to the possibility of the damage because we're going to
be able to look at that in working in conjunction with the EPA, and of
course, the people closest to the citizens are the State and local
levels.
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. SHIMKUS. I thank the gentleman.
I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 1 minute
remaining, and the gentleman from Illinois has 4 minutes remaining.
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. SHIMKUS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
This has been a good discussion and a good debate. With regard to the
State border issue in our opening statements and comments, what we
highlighted was the fact that current Federal law applies to hazardous
material. CERCLA still applies, and EPA air quality standards still
apply. Those laws are still in effect across States. If they are having
an impact, EPA has authority under CERCLA and under RCRA, with imminent
and substantial endangerment, to take action to force a remedy and
cleanup.
So our debate has always been that that's covered. Let's try to
address the impoundment issue, the leaching issue, some standards. The
Municipal Solid Waste laws are very, very successful. I would argue, if
you want to talk about toxicity, there are probably many more chemicals
in a municipal solid waste landfill than the 7 to 12 that you mentioned
in coal combustion residual; and out of the 80 tests, the standards are
much lower than the toxic standard under this test.
So this is a focus on jobs. This is a focus on recycling. That sector
is being ravaged just by the threat. This is an important bill, and I
am glad my colleague from West Virginia has brought this to this
Chamber. It has been a great debate, and I look forward to the
amendment discussion.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Chair, legitimate conversation and good-faith
negotiations surrounding whether or not we can find a way to allow
states to continue regulating coal ash seemed to bear fruit in the
Energy and Commerce Committee for the first time in a while around
here. So when we voted in July to send the Coal Residual Reuse and
Management Act to the floor, I voted ``yes.'' I'm proud to say my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle and I have continued trying to
find a workable solution on this issue.
The concept behind this bill is good--in the face of uncertainty
surrounding coal ash disposal and management, we could cut through the
red tape and craft a bill that would require--for the first time--that
all units receiving coal combustions residuals (CCRs) obtain a state-
issued permit that meets enforceable minimum federal requirements.
At the mark-up I, along with other minority members, requested a
Committee hearing before floor consideration so that we could examine
more fully the potential impacts of the most recent changes to the
bill. My goal was to reach an agreement on specific bill language that
would clearly require all units to obtain a permit, and if the EPA
found this permit to be deficient, to allow the EPA to work with states
to bring their permit programs up to a standard that ensured protection
of human health and environment.
In the intervening time, negotiations continued, as you see with the
Manager's Amendment introduced by my colleague Mr. Shimkus. I was
encouraged by my conversations with friends on both sides of the aisle
which reinforced that we share the same goals. In conversations with
the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, the state
body in Colorado responsible for managing CCRs, I learned that they
supported H.R. 2273 because they believed it would allow them to
continue with their strong program, and would raise standards in states
with deficiencies. Yet the outstanding question, of whether any future
EPA Administrator would have the authority to enforce the requirements
we all seemed to agree should be in place, remains unanswered.
We need more time to negotiate this bill, especially if anyone
reasonably expects it to be passed in the Senate and signed into law by
President Obama. I remained committed to the bipartisan process that
brought this bill to this point, but cannot vote to approve of the
bill's language for the following reasons.
First, even with the changes in the Manager's Amendment, I cannot
safely say that this bill would uphold a legal standard to protect
human health and environment. This legal standard should be stated
explicitly in the bill under the permit program specifications.
Currently, under the Manager's Amendment, protection of public health
and the environment is mentioned in reference to the revised criteria
in the bill that originally applied to municipal solid waste. But a
state permit program is not required to incorporate these revised
criteria, and, furthermore, it is unclear whether the revised criteria
would protect public health and the environment when applied to CCRs
instead of municipal solid waste.
Second, I believe this legislation should clearly describe when and
how EPA can get involved if a state permit program does not uphold
human health and environmental protections. As currently drafted, it is
unclear whether the EPA could provide written notice and an opportunity
to remedy deficiencies if a permit program does not meet specifications
described under the revised criteria. In one subsection, the language
implies the EPA
[[Page H6942]]
could provide notice; yet in another section, the EPA is limited to
evaluating the sufficiency of only the minimum requirements. Further,
if a state chooses not to implement a permit program, the EPA can only
design a program that enforces the minimum requirements, but not any of
the revised criteria.
Because this bill directly creates new regulation without expert
guidance from the Administration, Congress must hold this language to
an even stricter standard. I believe Colorado could operate a permit
program under this proposed language that would protect human health
and the environment, and I want to thank them for their good work and
assistance on this issue. Unfortunately, I do not believe every state's
permit program could be required to meet this basic requirement. I
believe this is a bipartisan issue and that I can work through these
differences with my friends across the aisle, but in this form I cannot
support H.R. 2273, the Coal Combustion Residuals Reuse and Management
Act.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 2273, the
Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act, a bill which would prevent the
EPA's burdensome regulations from drastically raising the price of
electricity in my state of Florida. H.R. 2273 protects public health
and the environment through the auspices of state run programs which
safely regulate coal combustion residuals. As we have heard during the
course of this debate, if the EPA is successful in classifying coal ash
as a hazardous waste there is not only the potential of hundreds of
thousands of jobs being lost, but also the likelihood that the cost of
electricity will skyrocket. I know my constituents can't afford more
hard times during this unprecedented economic downturn.
I'm proud to report that in the Tampa Bay area a responsible partner
is helping to preserve jobs, enhance public health and protect the
environment--the Tampa Electric Company recycles nearly 98 percent of
all coal combustion residuals--which is one of the highest recycling
rates in the nation among large power generators. These CCRs are
recycled into concrete, roof shingles, asphalt, wallboard and a number
of other useful items. Rather than clogging up landfills, the CCRs
provide a variety of benefits and jobs.
I commend Tampa Electric for its good stewardship. Their recycling
program has offset electricity costs over the past 19 years to the tune
of $55 million. Let's pass H.R. 2273 to allow Tampa Electric and other
companies nationwide to continue employing Americans, keeping energy
costs low and protecting the environment by allowing CCRs to be managed
as nonhazardous.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 2273,
the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act.
Once again, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, is on a path to
destroy jobs, and increase costs on every American household. It is
puzzling to see the EPA attempt to regulate coal combustion residuals,
CCRs, as a hazardous waste, when the EPA, the Department of Energy, the
Federal Highway Administration, the Department of Agriculture, the
Electric Power Research Institute, state agencies, members of academia,
and many others who have studied CCRs for nearly three decades
concluded that coal ash does not warrant regulation as a hazardous
waste.
Under the Clinton Administration, the EPA determined that coal ash
rarely, if ever, exhibits a hazardous waste characteristic. They
ultimately concluded that states can safely manage coal ash under
federal non-hazardous rules. Additionally, the EPA stated in its 2000
regulatory determination that regulating coal ash as a hazardous waste
would be environmentally counterproductive because it would
unnecessarily stigmatize coal ash and impede its beneficial use for
reducing greenhouse gases. If the EPA under the Clinton Administration
concluded that moving forward with regulating CCRs as a hazardous waste
would increase greenhouse gas emissions, then why are so many of my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle supportive of the current
Administration's actions? If I recall, we spent a good amount of time
debating legislation in 2009 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
In my home state of Wisconsin, this rule will have a significant
impact on many different sectors. The concrete paving industry in
Wisconsin uses coal ash on almost 100 percent of its projects. The use
of coal ash enhances the performance and durability of concrete, which
ultimately increases its lifespan. Additionally, given Wisconsin's cold
winters, the use of coal ash in its concrete is even more important due
to the reduction of the permeability of the concrete by 50-75 percent,
allowing the concrete to better resist the freeze-thaw environment.
This regulation will also significantly affect the electric utility
industry. Instead of recycling the coal ash produced as a byproduct
from coal-fired power plants, the industry will be forced to dispose of
the ash in landfills, costing billions. This could potentially lead to
the closing of a number of coal plants, creating serious reliability
and cost concerns. Additionally, the increased costs to the utility
sector will ultimately be passed along to the American consumer.
The legislation before us is a commonsense approach to addressing
coal ash. States are best able to determine the approach to regulating
CCRs. While this legislation will set a federal baseline standard,
states will be allowed to exceed these standards if they so choose.
Additionally, this legislation assesses the structural integrity of
land disposal sites, addressing the concerns that some may have with
preventing another spill like that which occurred in 2008. I strongly
support passage of H.R. 2273, and urge my colleagues to support this
bill.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, coal-based power plants account for
roughly one half of all electricity generation in the United States and
produce about 135 million tons of coal combustion waste annually. This
enormous waste stream contains toxins like arsenic, lead and mercury
that can contaminate drinking water and threaten public health--which
is why the EPA is in the process of developing regulations to ensure
that it is either responsibly recycled or disposed of properly.
Rather than letting EPA complete its work, H.R. 2273 directs each
state to create its own coal waste management permitting program,
without any legal standard to ensure a minimum level of public safety.
Moreover, if a state decides not to enforce the standards it puts in
its own permitting program, there is little EPA can do about it.
Madam Chair, as the 2008 Kingston disaster demonstrated, coal ash is
dangerous, inadequately regulated, and dispersed throughout the
country. In order to protect the public health and avoid a regulatory
race to the bottom, we as a nation must establish and enforce a minimum
federal level of safety and protection for all of our citizens.
This regulation takes us in precisely the opposite direction.
Accordingly, I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chair, in December 2008 an impoundment holding
disposed ash waste generated by the Tennessee Valley Authority broke
open, creating a massive spill in Kingston, TN. The spill covered the
surrounding land and Clinch River with one billion gallons of coal fly
ash, displaced residents, and resulted in $1.2 billion in cleanup
costs.
The accident underscored the need for rules to ensure structural
stability and safety of coal ash impoundments.
In response, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed the first-
ever regulations to ensure the safe disposal and management of coal ash
from coal-fired power plants under the nation's primary law for
regulating solid waste, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
RCRA.
In June 2010, the EPA presented two regulatory options: regulating
coal ash as hazardous waste under Subtitle C or regulating coal ash as
a non-hazardous waste under Subtitle D. The EPA has not established a
deadline for the final rule.
I have serious concerns that designating fly ash as a hazardous
material, the result of regulating coal ash under Subtitle C, could
have major impacts on the recycling and reuse of fly ash to manufacture
wallboard, roofing materials and bricks, and especially concrete.
In 2008 alone, the concrete industry used 15.8 million tons of fly
ash in the manufacturing of ready mixed concrete making it the most
widely used supplemental cementing material. When combined with cement,
fly ash improves the durability, strength, constructability, and
economy of concrete.
It also has huge environmental benefits. Using coal ash--and
industrial byproduct--in concrete results in longer lasting structures
and reduction in the amount of waste materials sent to landfills, raw
materials extracted, energy required for production, and air emissions,
including carbon dioxide.
A ``hazardous'' designation of fly ash could put these benefits in
jeopardy. It could make fly ash storage and transportation more
expensive, and create a legal environment that would deter cement
manufacturers from recycling fly ash in cement production.
The result would not only be devastating for the cement manufacturing
industry and American jobs, it could also divert millions of tons of
coal fly ash from beneficial uses to surface impoundments like the one
that broke open in Kingston, Tennessee.
For these reasons, my preference is for EPA to regulate fly ash under
Subtitle D of the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act. This would
ensure we have strong regulations for surface impoundments of coal ash
needed to protect public health and the environment without inhibiting
the recycling and reuse of coal fly ash.
It is also for these reasons that I am supporting H.R. 2273. The Coal
Residuals Reuse and Management Act is not a perfect bill. In fact, this
bill could have been much simpler and likely noncontroversial if my
Republican colleagues had just legislated Subtitle D of
[[Page H6943]]
RCRA. It is my hope that the U.S. Senate will take this more targeted
approach.
Nonetheless, H.R. 2273 does clarify that coal fly ash should not be
regulated as a hazardous waste and establishes minimum state disposal
requirements. In my state, this would mean the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality would develop appropriate rules for the handling
of coal fly ash for the only coal plant in the state--PGE's Boardman
Power Plant--and for the many Ready Mix Producers throughout Oregon
that use coal fly ash as a necessary ingredient in the manufacturing of
concrete.
I support strong regulations for the disposal and storage of coal
ash. But, these regulations can and should be completed without
jeopardizing the recycling and reuse of fly ash. By voting for H.R.
2273, I am voting in favor of moving forward with regulation and
providing the EPA with needed direction.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Chair, it is absolutely untenable that there are
currently no federally enforceable regulations specific to coal ash.
This lack of federally enforceable safeguards is what led to the
disaster in Tennessee, where a dam holding more than 1 billion gallons
of toxic coal ash failed.
This spill destroyed 300 acres, dozens of homes, killed fish and
other wildlife, and poisoned the Emory and Clinch Rivers.
Living near an unlined coal ash waste pond and drinking water
contaminated with arsenic can be more dangerous than smoking a pack of
cigarettes a day, according to a risk assessment done by the EPA.
People living near unlined coal ash ponds where water is contaminated
by arsenic and ash is mixed with coal refuse have an extremely high
risk of cancer, up to 1 in 50.
This is 2000 times greater than EPA's acceptable cancer risk.
So, we can burn coal, creating sodium, thallium, mercury, boron,
aluminum and arsenic which is pumped out of the factory and into the
air.
Or, we can stop stripping our land, polluting our air and waters and
do what's right.
The first step is to establish comprehensive, federally enforceable
safeguards that protect human health, wildlife, and the environment.
The measure we consider today fails to establish a national legal
standard for coal ash.
The bill also places significant limits on the ability of the EPA to
conduct an independent review of state programs.
When it comes to matters of public health there are no such things as
good compromises.
As Randy Ellis, a Republican and County Commissioner for Roane
County, Tennessee, the county where the TVA spill happened, said
earlier this week--the environment is truly a non-partisan issue.
I stand here in opposition to this bill as neither a Democrat nor a
politician, but someone who believes that this bill neither protects
our public health, nor does it make our country better.
I urge my colleagues to do what's right and oppose H.R. 2273.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered
read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
H.R. 2273
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Coal Residuals Reuse and
Management Act''.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO SUBTITLE D OF THE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
ACT.
(a) In General.--Subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
(42 U.S.C. 6941 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``SEC. 4011. MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL OF COAL COMBUSTION
RESIDUALS.
``(a) State Permit Programs for Coal Combustion
Residuals.--Each State may adopt and implement a coal
combustion residuals permit program.
``(b) State Actions.--
``(1) Notification.--Not later than 6 months after the date
of enactment of this section (except as provided by the
deadline identified under subsection (d)(2)(B)), the Governor
of each State shall notify the Administrator, in writing,
whether such State will adopt and implement a coal combustion
residuals permit program.
``(2) Certification.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 36 months after the date
of enactment of this section (except as provided in
subsections (f)(1)(A) and (f)(1)(C)), in the case of a State
that has notified the Administrator that it will implement a
coal combustion residuals permit program, the head of the
lead State agency responsible for implementing the coal
combustion residuals permit program shall submit to the
Administrator a certification that such coal combustion
residuals permit program meets the specifications described
in subsection (c)(1).
``(B) Contents.--A certification submitted under this
paragraph shall include--
``(i) a letter identifying the lead State agency
responsible for implementing the coal combustion residuals
permit program, signed by the head of such agency;
``(ii) identification of any other State agencies involved
with the implementation of the coal combustion residuals
permit program;
``(iii) a narrative description that provides an
explanation of how the State will ensure that the coal
combustion residuals permit program meets the requirements of
this section;
``(iv) a legal certification that the State has, at the
time of certification, fully effective statutes, regulations,
or guidance necessary to implement a coal combustion
residuals permit program that meets the specifications
described in subsection (c)(1); and
``(v) copies of State statutes, regulations, and guidance
described in clause (iv).
``(3) Maintenance of 4005(c) or 3006 program.--In order to
adopt or implement a coal combustion residuals permit program
under this section (including pursuant to subsection (f)),
the State agency responsible for implementing a coal
combustion residuals permit program in a State shall maintain
an approved program under section 4005(c) or an authorized
program under section 3006.
``(c) Permit Program Specifications.--
``(1) Minimum requirements.--The specifications described
in this subsection for a coal combustion residuals permit
program are as follows:
``(A) The revised criteria described in paragraph (2) shall
apply to a coal combustion residuals permit program, except
as provided in paragraph (3).
``(B) Each structure shall be, in accordance with generally
accepted engineering standards for the structural integrity
of such structures, designed, constructed, and maintained to
provide for containment of the maximum volumes of coal
combustion residuals appropriate for the structure. If a
structure is determined by the head of the agency responsible
for implementing the coal combustion residuals permit program
to be deficient, the head of such agency has authority to
require action to correct the deficiency. If the identified
deficiency is not corrected, the head of such agency has
authority to require that the structure close in accordance
with subsection (h).
``(C) The coal combustion residuals permit program shall
apply the revised criteria promulgated pursuant to section
4010(c) for location, design, groundwater monitoring,
corrective action, financial assurance, closure and post-
closure described in paragraph (2) and the specifications
described in this paragraph to surface impoundments.
``(D) Constituents for detection monitoring shall include
boron, chloride, conductivity, fluoride, pH, sulphate,
sulfide, and total dissolved solids.
``(E) If a structure that is classified as posing a high
hazard potential pursuant to the guidelines published by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency entitled `Federal
Guidelines for Dam Safety: Hazard Potential Classification
System for Dams' (FEMA Publication Number 333) is determined
by the head of the agency responsible for implementing the
coal combustion residuals permit program to be deficient with
respect to the structural integrity requirement in
subparagraph (B), the head of such agency has authority to
require action to correct the deficiency. If the identified
deficiency is not corrected, the head of such agency has
authority to require that the structure close in accordance
with subsection (h).
``(F) New structures that first receive coal combustion
residuals after the date of enactment of this section shall
be constructed with a base located a minimum of two feet
above the upper limit of the natural water table.
``(G) In the case of a coal combustion residuals permit
program implemented by a State, the State has the authority
to inspect structures and implement and enforce such permit
program.
``(2) Revised criteria.--The revised criteria described in
this paragraph are--
``(A) the revised criteria for design, groundwater
monitoring, corrective action, closure, and post-closure, for
structures, including--
``(i) for new structures, and lateral expansions of
existing structures, that first receive coal combustion
residuals after the date of enactment of this section, the
revised criteria regarding design requirements described in
section 258.40 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations; and
``(ii) for all structures that receive coal combustion
residuals after the date of enactment of this section, the
revised criteria regarding groundwater monitoring
requirements described in subpart E of part 258 of title 40,
Code of Federal Regulations;
``(B) the revised criteria for location restrictions
described in--
``(i) for new structures, and lateral expansions of
existing structures, that first receive coal combustion
residuals after the date of enactment of this section,
sections 258.11 through 258.15 of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations; and
``(ii) for existing structures that receive coal combustion
residuals after the date of enactment of this section,
sections 258.11 and 258.15 of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations;
``(C) for all structures that receive coal combustion
residuals after the date of enactment of this section, the
revised criteria for air quality described in section 258.24
of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations; and
``(D) for all structures that receive coal combustion
residuals after the date of enactment of this section, the
revised criteria for financial assurance described in subpart
G of part 258 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations.
``(3) Applicability of certain requirements.--A State may
determine that one or
[[Page H6944]]
more of the requirements of the revised criteria described in
paragraph (2) is not needed for the management of coal
combustion residuals in that State, and may decline to apply
such requirement as part of its coal combustion residuals
permit program. If a State declines to apply a requirement
under this paragraph, the State shall include in the
certification under subsection (b)(2) a description of such
requirement and the reasons such requirement is not needed in
the State. If the Administrator determines that a State
determination under this paragraph does not accurately
reflect the needs for the management of coal combustion
residuals in the State, the Administrator may treat such
State determination as a deficiency under subsection (d).
``(d) Written Notice and Opportunity To Remedy.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall provide to a
State written notice and an opportunity to remedy
deficiencies in accordance with paragraph (2) if at any time
the State--
``(A) does not satisfy the notification requirement under
subsection (b)(1);
``(B) has not submitted a certification under subsection
(b)(2);
``(C) does not satisfy the maintenance requirement under
subsection (b)(3); or
``(D) is not implementing a coal combustion residuals
permit program that meets the specifications described in
subsection (c)(1).
``(2) Contents of notice; deadline for response.--A notice
provided under this subsection shall--
``(A) include findings of the Administrator detailing any
applicable deficiencies in--
``(i) compliance by the State with the notification
requirement under subsection (b)(1);
``(ii) compliance by the State with the certification
requirement under subsection (b)(2);
``(iii) compliance by the State with the maintenance
requirement under subsection (b)(3); and
``(iv) the State coal combustion residuals permit program
in meeting the specifications described in subsection (c)(1);
and
``(B) identify, in collaboration with the State, a
reasonable deadline, which shall be not sooner than 6 months
after the State receives the notice, by which the State shall
remedy the deficiencies detailed under subparagraph (A).
``(e) Implementation by Administrator.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall implement a coal
combustion residuals permit program for a State only in the
following circumstances:
``(A) If the Governor of such State notifies the
Administrator under subsection (b)(1) that such State will
not adopt and implement such a permit program.
``(B) If such State has received a notice under subsection
(d) and, after any review brought by the State under section
7006, fails, by the deadline identified in such notice under
subsection (d)(2)(B), to remedy the deficiencies detailed in
such notice under subsection (d)(2)(A).
``(C) If such State informs the Administrator, in writing,
that such State will no longer implement such a permit
program.
``(2) Requirements.--If the Administrator implements a coal
combustion residuals permit program for a State under
paragraph (1), such permit program shall consist of the
specifications described in subsection (c)(1).
``(3) Enforcement.--If the Administrator implements a coal
combustion residuals permit program for a State under
paragraph (1), the authorities referred to in section
4005(c)(2)(A) shall apply with respect to coal combustion
residuals and structures and the Administrator may use such
authorities to inspect, gather information, and enforce the
requirements of this section in the State.
``(f) State Control After Implementation by
Administrator.--
``(1) State control.--
``(A) New adoption and implementation by state.--For a
State for which the Administrator is implementing a coal
combustion residuals permit program under subsection
(e)(1)(A), the State may adopt and implement such a permit
program by--
``(i) notifying the Administrator that the State will adopt
and implement such a permit program;
``(ii) not later than 6 months after the date of such
notification, submitting to the Administrator a certification
under subsection (b)(2); and
``(iii) receiving from the Administrator--
``(I) a determination that the State coal combustion
residuals permit program meets the specifications described
in subsection (c)(1); and
``(II) a timeline for transition of control of the coal
combustion residuals permit program.
``(B) Remedying deficient permit program.--For a State for
which the Administrator is implementing a coal combustion
residuals permit program under subsection (e)(1)(B), the
State may adopt and implement such a permit program by--
``(i) remedying the deficiencies detailed in the notice
provided under subsection (d)(2)(A); and
``(ii) receiving from the Administrator--
``(I) a determination that the deficiencies detailed in
such notice have been remedied; and
``(II) a timeline for transition of control of the coal
combustion residuals permit program.
``(C) Resumption of implementation by state.--For a State
for which the Administrator is implementing a coal combustion
residuals permit program under subsection (e)(1)(C), the
State may adopt and implement such a permit program by--
``(i) notifying the Administrator that the State will adopt
and implement such a permit program;
``(ii) not later than 6 months after the date of such
notification, submitting to the Administrator a certification
under subsection (b)(2); and
``(iii) receiving from the Administrator--
``(I) a determination that the State coal combustion
residuals permit program meets the specifications described
in subsection (c)(1); and
``(II) a timeline for transition of control of the coal
combustion residuals permit program.
``(2) Review of determination.--
``(A) Determination required.--The Administrator shall make
a determination under paragraph (1) not later than 90 days
after the date on which the State submits a certification
under paragraph (1)(A)(ii) or (1)(C)(ii), or notifies the
Administrator that the deficiencies have been remedied
pursuant to paragraph (1)(B)(i), as applicable.
``(B) Review.--A State may obtain a review of a
determination by the Administrator under paragraph (1) as if
such determination was a final regulation for purposes of
section 7006.
``(3) Implementation during transition.--
``(A) Effect on actions and orders.--Actions taken or
orders issued pursuant to a coal combustion residuals permit
program shall remain in effect if--
``(i) a State takes control of its coal combustion
residuals permit program from the Administrator under
paragraph (1); or
``(ii) the Administrator takes control of a coal combustion
residuals permit program from a State under subsection (e).
``(B) Change in requirements.--Subparagraph (A) shall apply
to such actions and orders until such time as the
Administrator or the head of the lead State agency
responsible for implementing the coal combustion residuals
permit program, as applicable--
``(i) implements changes to the requirements of the coal
combustion residuals permit program with respect to the basis
for the action or order; or
``(ii) certifies the completion of a corrective action that
is the subject of the action or order.
``(4) Single permit program.--If a State adopts and
implements a coal combustion residuals permit program under
this subsection, the Administrator shall cease to implement
the permit program implemented under subsection (e) for such
State.
``(g) Effect on Determination Under 4005(c) or 3006.--The
Administrator shall not consider the implementation of a coal
combustion residuals permit program by the Administrator
under subsection (e) in making a determination of approval
for a permit program or other system of prior approval and
conditions under section 4005(c) or of authorization for a
program under section 3006.
``(h) Closure.--If it is determined, pursuant to a coal
combustion residuals permit program, that a structure should
close, the time period and method for the closure of such
structure shall be set forth, in a schedule, in a closure
plan that takes into account the nature and the site-specific
characteristics of the structure to be closed. In the case of
a surface impoundment, the closure plan shall require, at a
minimum, the removal of liquid and the stabilization of
remaining waste, as necessary to support the final cover.
``(i) Authority.--
``(1) State authority.--Nothing in this section shall
preclude or deny any right of any State to adopt or enforce
any regulation or requirement respecting coal combustion
residuals that is more stringent or broader in scope than a
regulation or requirement under this section.
``(2) Authority of the administrator.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subsection (e) of
this section and section 6005 of this title, the
Administrator shall, with respect to the regulation of coal
combustion residuals, defer to the States pursuant to this
section.
``(B) Imminent hazard.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to affect the authority of the Administrator under
section 7003 with respect to coal combustion residuals.
``(j) Mine Reclamation Activities.--A coal combustion
residuals permit program implemented under subsection (e) by
the Administrator shall not apply to the utilization,
placement, and storage of coal combustion residuals at
surface mining and reclamation operations.
``(k) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Coal combustion residuals.--The term `coal combustion
residuals' means--
``(A) the solid wastes listed in section 3001(b)(3)(A)(i),
including recoverable materials from such wastes;
``(B) coal combustion wastes that are co-managed with
wastes produced in conjunction with the combustion of coal,
provided that such wastes are not segregated and disposed of
separately from the coal combustion wastes and comprise a
relatively small proportion of the total wastes being
disposed in the structure;
``(C) fluidized bed combustion wastes;
``(D) wastes from the co-burning of coal with non-hazardous
secondary materials provided that coal makes up at least 50
percent of the total fuel burned; and
``(E) wastes from the co-burning of coal with materials
described in subparagraph (A) that are recovered from
monofills.
``(2) Coal combustion residuals permit program.--The term
`coal combustion residuals permit program' means a permit
program or other system of prior approval and conditions that
is adopted by or for a State for the management and disposal
of coal combustion residuals to the extent such activities
occur in structures in such State.
``(3) Structure.--The term `structure' means a landfill,
surface impoundment, or other land-based unit which may
receive coal combustion residuals.
``(4) Revised criteria.--The term `revised criteria' means
the criteria promulgated for municipal solid waste landfill
units under section 4004(a) and under section 1008(a)(3), as
revised under section 4010(c).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents contained
in section 1001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is amended by
inserting
[[Page H6945]]
after the item relating to section 4010 the following:
``Sec. 4011. Management and disposal of coal combustion residuals.''.
SEC. 3. 2000 REGULATORY DETERMINATION.
Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act,
shall be construed to alter in any manner the Environmental
Protection Agency's regulatory determination entitled
``Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes from the
Combustion of Fossil Fuels'', published at 65 Fed. Reg. 32214
(May 22, 2000), that the fossil fuel combustion wastes
addressed in that determination do not warrant regulation
under subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C.
6921 et seq.).
The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order
except those printed in House Report 112-244. Each such amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable
for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Shimkus
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in House Report 112-244.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 5, line 2, strike the semicolon and insert the
following: ``, including a description of the State's--
``(I) process to inspect or otherwise determine compliance
with such permit program;
``(II) process to enforce the requirements of such permit
program; and
``(III) public participation process for the promulgation,
amendment, or repeal of regulations for, and the issuance of
permits under, such permit program;
Page 5, line 5, strike ``, regulations, or guidance'' and
insert ``or regulations''.
Page 5, beginning on line 9, strike ``, regulations, and
guidance'' and insert ``and regulations''.
Page 6, line 13, insert ``according to a schedule
determined by such agency'' after ``correct the deficiency''.
Page 6, line 14, insert ``according to such schedule''
after ``is not corrected''.
Page 6, line 21, insert a comma after ``assurance,
closure''.
Beginning on page 7, line 1, strike subparagraph (D) and
redesignate subparagraphs (E) through (G) as subparagraphs
(D) through (F), respectively.
Page 7, line 17, insert ``according to a schedule
determined by such agency'' before the period.
Page 7, line 18, insert ``according to such schedule''
before the comma.
Page 8, after line 5, insert the following new
subparagraph:
``(G) In the case of a coal combustion residuals permit
program implemented by a State, the State has the authority
to address wind dispersal of dust from coal combustion
residuals by requiring dust control measures, as determined
appropriate by the head of the lead State agency responsible
for implementing the coal combustion residuals permit
program.
Page 8, line 21, insert ``and corrective action'' after
``groundwater monitoring''.
Page 8, line 23, strike the semicolon and insert the
following: ``, except that, for the purposes of this
paragraph, such revised criteria shall also include--
``(I) for the purposes of detection monitoring, the
constituents boron, chloride, conductivity, fluoride,
mercury, pH, sulfate, sulfide, and total dissolved solids;
and
``(II) for the purposes of assessment monitoring, the
constituents aluminum, boron, chloride, fluoride, iron,
manganese, molybdenum, pH, sulfate, and total dissolved
solids;
Page 9, line 16, strike ``; and'' and insert a semicolon.
Page 9, line 21, strike the period and insert a semicolon.
Page 9, after line 21, insert the following:
``(E) for all structures that receive coal combustion
residuals after the date of enactment of this section, the
revised criteria for surface water described in section
258.27 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations;
``(F) for all structures that receive coal combustion
residuals after the date of enactment of this section, the
revised criteria for recordkeeping described in section
258.29 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations;
``(G) for landfills and other land-based units, other than
surface impoundments, that receive coal combustion residuals
after the date of enactment of this section, the revised
criteria for run-on and run-off control systems described in
section 258.26 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations; and
``(H) for surface impoundments that receive coal combustion
residuals after the date of enactment of this section, the
revised criteria for run-off control systems described in
section 258.26(a)(2) of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations.
Page 17, line 23, strike ``, in a schedule,''.
Page 17, line 24, insert ``that establishes a deadline for
completion and'' before ``that takes into account''.
Page 18, after line 20, insert the following:
``(C) Technical and enforcement assistance only upon
request.--Upon request from the head of a lead State agency
that is implementing a coal combustion residuals permit
program, the Administrator may provide to such State agency
only the technical or enforcement assistance requested.
``(3) Citizen suits.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to affect the authority of a person to commence a
civil action in accordance with section 7002.
Page 20, line 11, insert ``in accordance with the
requirement of such section that the criteria protect human
health and the environment'' after ``4010(c)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 431, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chairman, for the purpose of a colloquy, I would
like to yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. McKINLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Before I agree to support the gentleman's amendment, I would like
some clarification on one of the provisions it contains. It would amend
the definition of ``revised criteria'' in the bill to read: ``The
criteria promulgated for municipal solid waste landfill units . . . as
revised under section 4010(c) in accordance with the requirement of
such section that the criteria protect human health and the
environment.''
Does the gentleman's amendment open the door, even a sliver, to EPA
promulgating coal ash regulations not otherwise authorized in this bill
under the guise of protecting human health and the environment; or for
EPA to use the language as an arbitrary yardstick by which to judge
State programs?
Mr. SHIMKUS. To my friend from West Virginia, my response is that it
does not.
My amendment keeps that door to EPA alternative regulation closed and
locked. The language the gentleman cites merely references law that is
already on the books, as you heard in the general debate. Section
4010(c) of RCRA was enacted years ago to protect human health and the
environment. My amendment merely clarifies that your bill does not
change that.
Mr. McKINLEY. Madam Chairman, the 4010(c) of RCRA also gives EPA
authority to take into account the practicable capabilities of such
facilities.
Does the gentleman's amendment alter that authority in any way?
Mr. SHIMKUS. Again to my colleague and friend from West Virginia, my
amendment in no way reduces the administrator's authority to take into
account facility capabilities. That authority is unchanged by both my
amendment and your underlying bill.
Mr. McKINLEY. With those clarifications, I will support the
gentleman's amendment.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1200
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
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
[[Page H6946]]
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. SHIMKUS. I appreciate the ranking member's accepting the
amendment. We do think it improves the bill.
I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene
Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I thank the ranking member on our
subcommittee for accepting the amendment.
This amendment does make the bill better, but if we're looking for
the perfect, you're in the wrong place. A legislative process is not
where you get perfection. We come together. We compromise.
This floor amendment by the ranking member actually makes the bill
better than it was when it came out of committee, and I voted for it
out of committee. So I'm glad he made it better with this amendment.
But we'll never get perfection, whether it be the House, and I can
guarantee, almost, not in the Senate.
But this bill is better by this amendment, and that's why I encourage
its adoption.
Mr. SHIMKUS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr.
Pearce) to speak in support of the bill.
Mr. PEARCE. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the underlying bill,
H.R. 2273.
Basically, we hear a lot about the President asking: Where are the
Republican plans for jobs?
I could refer the President to the Western Caucus Jobs Frontier
Report that was put out the same day as his speech on the floor that's
got 40 pieces of legislation that would create exact jobs. But half the
time we're in this body talking about jobs, we have to play defense; we
have to keep the President from killing jobs, and that's basically what
this bill does.
The EPA is going to implement regulations which, for instance, will
have an effect in the Four Corners plant near Grants, New Mexico. It's
going to be forced to comply with regulations, not to noticeably
improve the quality of our air, but simply new regulations. And the
coal ash from that plant is shipped around the country. It's shipped to
cement factories in New Mexico and California.
As we shut off the ability to use this coal ash, then we're going to
raise costs. We're going to create job-killing regulations that, in
fact, are taking place across the country right now. If we look and
break down the intent, really, there are several regulations that
intend to kill coal mining in total. And so why don't we talk about the
real intent of different regulations.
We're shutting down electric generation right now. Last year we saw
rolling blackouts. We saw the power outages in New Mexico, and yet one
of our plants that generates electricity is having to shut down 60
percent of its capacity.
So these are the things that are killing jobs; the President is doing
this bill. The underlying bill, H.R. 2273, simply pushes back on those
regulations.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois has 15 seconds
remaining.
Mr. SHIMKUS. I want to again thank the ranking member for accepting
this, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Waxman
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in House Report 112-244.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 8, after line 5, insert the following new
subparagraph:
``(H) The coal combustion residuals permit program contains
criteria necessary to protect human health and the
environment.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 431, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Waxman) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
{time} 1210
Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA, was passed to
protect the public health and the environment from unsafe disposal of
solid waste. It created duties reserved to the EPA and programs that
could be delegated to the States. Like other environmental statutes,
RCRA sets a legal standard of protectiveness for State-delegated
programs. These standards are the yardstick by which it is determined
whether a State's effort measures up, and they ensure our consistent
level of effort and protection throughout the Nation.
This approach has worked well because it prevents a race to the
bottom among the States in which a State willing to have the laxest
protections becomes the dumping ground for the Nation. Congress has
taken this approach for 40 years. We create a Federal floor of
protection and allow States to go further as necessary. H.R. 2273 turns
this approach on its head by saying that each State must have a program
but that program can offer as little protection as the State chooses.
Well, that's essentially the status quo.
The authors of this bill are attempting to model coal ash disposal on
disposal of municipal solid waste. That's
[[Page H6947]]
what they claim. In the case of municipal solid waste, however, the
legal standard is that the program must protect human health and the
environment from the risks associated with municipal solid waste. But
under this bill, this standard does not apply to coal combustion
residuals.
If we want to hold State coal ash permit programs to that standard,
the same standard to which State municipal solid waste permit programs
are held, my amendment is the way to do it. Without this amendment,
nothing in the bill ensures that permit programs, whether administered
by the States or the EPA, will protect human health and the
environment. They will not even have that as a goal.
Under the existing language, a State could put in place an
insufficient program, one that threatens human health, and so long as
they follow the required certification, they will meet their legal
requirements. There would be no way for the public, for affected
communities, or for the EPA to intervene to ensure the necessary
safeguards. If we adopt this amendment, State plans will have to
protect human health and the environment from the risks of unsafe coal
ash disposal.
These are serious risks that this legislation should address. For
example, groundwater has been contaminated from coal ash disposal in
Virginia, South Carolina, Michigan, New York, Massachusetts, Indiana,
North Dakota, and the list goes on. Fugitive dust from coal ash
disposal has impacted neighboring communities; for instance, toxic dust
has blown through people's homes in Gambrills, Maryland, harming the
respiratory health of the public, and risks from the catastrophic
failure of wet impoundments as serious as we saw in Kingston,
Tennessee.
When EPA issued its proposed rules in June 2010, they cited more than
two dozen proven cases of damage from coal ash disposal. Three of those
sites are now on the national priority list for cleanup under
Superfund, and the number of these incidents may be much higher. These
risks are real and they are significant. If this legislation is going
to address them, it needs to include a legal standard of
protectiveness.
If my amendment is adopted, State programs will be required to
protect human health and the environment. And if a State refuses to do
so, when EPA steps in, the agency will have to implement a program that
protects public health and the environment. It's a simple amendment,
but it's the difference between trying to protect health and the
environment and trying to protect the status quo.
I heard from my colleague and good friend from Texas saying the bill
was better and the legislative process is not always to get to the
perfect but to get a better bill. Well, it depends on what you consider
good enough. This bill is not good enough. With this amendment, it will
definitely be improved.
But it's not good enough to vote for a bill because it's better than
it was when it wasn't good enough then. It's better to vote ``no'' and
say ``no'' to a bill that's not good enough so you can get a better
bill. And I think in the other body we'll get a better bill if we are
willing to vote against this bill, say ``no'' until we get not the
perfect bill, but a much better bill than what the proponents of this
bill are saying is good enough, because I don't accept that conclusion.
I urge support for this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, I seek time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. 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. And I would
just say on page 10, line 8, if the administrator determines that a
State determination under this paragraph does not accurately reflect
the needs for the management of coal combustion residuals in the State,
the administrator may treat such State determination as a deficiency.
And if it's a deficiency, then the EPA can then be involved.
So we think that the issue that my colleague from California has
raised has been addressed, and we look forward to debate of the further
amendments.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Madam Chair, the amendment addressed issues
of public health which are critical, but the amendment was too vague
and likely redundant. Accordingly, and unusually, a ``present'' vote
would be appropriate. At the time of the vote, I was dealing with two
constituents, and their problems with Social Security and Post Office
closure, and inadvertently missed the vote.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Markey
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in House Report 112-244.
Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chair, I rise as the designee to offer amendment
No. 3, the Carney amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 8, after line 5, insert the following new
subparagraph:
``(H)(i) The coal combustion residuals permit program shall
require that--
``(I) each surface impoundment meet the requirements
applicable to existing and new structures under this section
by a deadline of the date that is 5 years after the date of
enactment of this section; and
``(II) each surface impoundment that does not meet all such
requirements by such deadline close in accordance with the
requirements of subsection (h).
``(ii) The head of the agency responsible for implementing
the coal combustion residuals permit program may extend the
deadline under clause (i) with respect to a surface
impoundment in 1-year increments upon a showing of good
cause, but in no case may the deadline be extended beyond the
date that is 10 years after the date of enactment of this
section.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 431, the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. I thank you.
Just 3 days before Christmas in 2008, the coal ash impoundment--and
``impoundment'' is just another word for giant swimming pool--burst in
Kingston, Tennessee, releasing 1.1 billion gallons of toxic sludge that
blanketed the nearby Emory River. That toxic stew that flowed out, a
billion gallons into the river, destroyed homes and 300 acres of
surrounding land, creating a Superfund site that could cost up to $1.2
billion to remediate. Since this incident, the EPA has identified 49
other giant pools of coal ash across the country that are designated as
high hazard.
{time} 1220
This means that if these impoundments were to fail, then it's not
just the land that would be damaged, but human life would likely be
lost.
This Republican bill purports to be a solution to what happened in
Tennessee. It claims to create standards
[[Page H6948]]
for these giant pools that would ensure a TVA catastrophe won't happen
again. But in fact it excludes safety requirements such as just
accounting for earthquakes or surface erosion. And even worse, the very
minimal requirements that are included in this bill only apply to new
impoundments there are built starting 3 years after this bill is
enacted. That's right. Nothing even starts for 3 years. And it's got to
be brand new.
So more than 430 impoundments that we know of and are in use today
are not even going to be covered by this bill. And they have been built
by old standards, not by the new standards. That's like finding a fatal
flaw in a car that's on the road, but only requiring car companies to
fix the ones that have not yet been built and won't even come on the
road for 3 years. Or, like finding E. coli in chicken on grocery store
shelves. But rather than issuing a recall today for the stuff that's on
the shelves, they say there are rules that are going to go in place 3
years from now so just let the contaminated poultry continue to be
sold.
This amendment is a simple fix to this problem. It would require all
impoundments to meet minimal safety criteria in this Republican bill.
Those facilities that cannot meet basic requirements such as installing
a liner so that this toxic coal sludge doesn't seep into the soil and
the groundwater will have 10 years to close their doors.
Unless this amendment is passed, disposal of coal ash in unlined,
unsafe pits will be allowed to continue. In Missouri, there is an
unlined impoundment that has been leaking more than 50,000 gallons of
toxic liquid a day since 1992. It would not have to be fixed. Let me
repeat that. Fifty-thousand gallons of toxic liquid a day since 1992
has been leaking out of that toxic facility, and it wouldn't have to be
fixed under that bill. What are you saying to the people in Missouri?
In Princeton, Indiana, a wet coal ash impoundment built in an
earthquake fault area discharged dangerous slurry when an earthquake
struck nearby last year. The spill contaminated a national wildlife
refuge with selenium. A wetland that is home to an endangered bird
species had to be drained and 50 tons of fish had to be buried. This
Republican bill would allow that impoundment to continue receiving coal
ash as well.
After the Kingston accident in 2008, the Tennessee Valley Authority
approved a plan to voluntarily phase out all of their coal ash ponds in
10 years and to eliminate high-risk storage facilities that pose a
danger to people and property if they were to fail. If they can do it,
shouldn't the other companies be able to do it as well?
We shouldn't have to wait for another catastrophe like Kingston to
happen before we require these basic safety measures to be employed at
all coal ash ponds.
I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you.
My friend from Massachusetts has great rhetorical skills, and I have
finally made it to the big time where I can do it as managing a bill
and addressing amendments.
He wasn't on the floor when we talked about the letter from the
Governor of Virginia, who admits that this bill is going to force the
State of Virginia to do more. It's because of this bill, he says,--and
I quoted it before--that will require effort to implement in Virginia,
such as regulatory amendments for conformance, and notifying and
seeking EPA approval.
So here is the Governor saying, We support this bill, and we know
we're going to have to do more.
I think that's positive.
We're talking about how H.R. 2273 already includes structural
integrity requirements that would allow only those facilities that are
operating in a protective manner to continue to operate. Moreover, EPA
has just completed a nationwide evaluation--I'm sure you're going to be
happy to hear this, Mr. Markey--and in this evaluation they said that
they have found none, zero, zip of these impoundments to be unsafe.
Now, that's our own EPA. And we're glad that they're out. They're now
checking these impoundment areas. I think a lot of this is a result of
moving this bill and having now at least a standard for liners. I think
from our testimony in subcommittee, liners are important. Liners are
what we do in municipal solid waste. Liners are what we should do with
coal combustion residuals. Well, this bill ensures that we have liners
in the coal combustion residual ponds and facilities.
So I think it's a very exciting time. It protects jobs. It helps for,
obviously, the recycling of this in the industry sector. It helps save
jobs. I think the amendment only hurts the passage and movement of this
bill.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Markey amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts will be postponed.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Markey
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in House Report 112-244.
Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 9, line 23, insert ``, after providing notice and
opportunity to comment to the public and the Administrator,''
after ``may''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 431, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Two weeks ago, scientists at a massive facility in Europe announced
that they may have discovered a particle that travels faster than the
speed of light--a discovery that would turn Einstein's theory of
special relativity upside down, a discovery that, if true, would
revolutionize the way we see the world. The news spurred a massive
amount of interest. Headlines read: ``Back to the Future,'' and media
stories even speculated on how this discovery could be exploited to
enable real-life time travel.
However, it seems Republicans have already figured out how to get
around Einstein's theory, because today the House will vote on a piece
of legislation that will blast us right back in time to the start of
the Industrial Revolution. This bill says no matter what EPA learns
about the sludge that comes out of coal-fired plants, no matter how
high the concentrations of poisonous arsenic, mercury, or chromium, and
no matter what EPA learns about how these materials find their way into
our drinking water, EPA is forbidden to classify or regulate it as
hazardous waste. EPA is forbidden to require that this toxic material
be disposed of carefully.
This bill turns a blind eye to evidence of known hazards and takes us
back to the Dark Ages, to a time before science was valued and before
advanced knowledge transformed society. It takes us back to an era when
mercury and arsenic, major components of coal ash, were used to cure
toothaches and clear up your complexion. It takes us back to an era
where children were sent deep into the bowels of the Earth to rip coal
from the mines and to die early deaths.
The problem with continuing to push a 19th century technology like
coal is that you then continue 19th century attitudes about public
health and the environment. Instead of time travel through Einstein's
theory of special relativity, Republicans are pushing to travel
backwards in time to advance the coal industry's special interests.
{time} 1230
While Republican efforts on time travel are unlikely to help us
understand black holes, they will take us back to the era of black lung
disease. Instead of allowing the coal industry
[[Page H6949]]
and Republicans to transport our country's environmental and public
health standards back to the era of Charles Dickens, we should hold
these industries to great-er expectations.
In December of 2008, hundreds of acres of land were buried in toxic
sludge after a Tennessee Valley Authority coal ash containment pond
collapsed in Tennessee, releasing 1.1 billion gallons of coal ash
slurry, covering more than 300 acres of land in a gray poisonous muck,
damaging homes and properties and tainting nearby rivers. The event
was, quite literally, a poisonous lump of coal dumped on the nearby
community just 3 days before Christmas.
This Republican bill purports to be a solution to what happened in
Tennessee. It claims to create standards for coal ash containment ponds
that would ensure structural integrity, but in fact it explicitly
exempts those same coal ash ponds from key design requirements relating
to their long-term stability.
This bill claims that States have to set up a rigorous drinking water
monitoring regime and dust controls, but in fact the bill has no legal
or enforceable standard for these State programs. And even more, any
State at any time can waive any of these minimal permitting
requirements and they don't have to tell anyone. That's right. When it
comes to constructing a gigantic containment pond in your backyard, a
State can choose to opt out of the requirements of this bill and no
one--not the public or the EPA--would ever even know. This is just
plain wrong.
We should not delegate this authority to the States and then turn
around and let States hide behind a cloak of secrecy when making
decisions about waste sites that may be hundreds of acres in size,
receive millions of tons of waste, and which may be in operation for
decades.
My amendment is very simple. It says that before a State can waive
even the minimal criteria that this bill requires, that the State must
first notify the public and the EPA and offer the opportunity for
public comment. That is the least that we have as a responsibility to
the public.
I urge an ``aye'' on the Markey amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
A couple of things. The gentleman's well-meaning amendment requires
public notice and comment, including from the administrator of the EPA,
before the State submits its certification paperwork to the
administrator of the EPA.
There's confusion as to what this bill does. For the first time,
States have to conform to the EPA standards. I read this before in
another part of the debate on page 10. If the administrator
determines--this is the administrator of the EPA. If the administrator
determines that a State determination under this paragraph does not
accurately reflect the need for the management of coal combustion
residuals in the State, the administrator may treat such determination
as deficient.
So there's really no purpose for my colleague's amendment. The EPA
has the ability to say good State program, bad State program. The
Governor of Virginia says we're already going to have to do more than
we do now because of this bill. And section 7004(b) of RCRA requires
public participation.
So part of our debate is: Why do we have to continue to put more laws
on the books when those provisions are already covered under RCRA?
Requires public participation in any enforcement of any regulation
guideline, information, or program under this act, including at the
Federal and State level. This requirement is not waived, it's not
amended, it's not altered or affected under this piece of legislation.
Those requirements under RCRA apply to H.R. 2273.
The gentleman's amendment is unnecessary, it's duplicative, and I ask
my colleagues to reject it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts will be postponed.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Rush
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in House Report 112-244.
Mr. RUSH. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 18, after line 20, insert the following new
subparagraph:
``(C) Enforcement.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), if
the Administrator determines that a structure is in violation
of a State coal combustion residuals permit program under
this section, and the State has not taken appropriate action
to enforce such permit program with respect to such
structure, the Administrator may inspect such structure and
enforce the requirements of such permit program with respect
to such structure.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 431, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Rush) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. RUSH. Madam Chair, my amendment simply provides Federal
enforcement authority so that if the EPA administrator determines that
a structure is in violation of a State coal combustion residuals permit
program and the State has not taken appropriate action to enforce such
permit program with respect to such structure, the administrator may
inspect such structure and enforce the requirements of such permit
program.
Madam Chair, as currently drafted, H.R. 2273 fails to require States
to enforce their own permit requirements. The manager's amendment only
requires States to describe their ``process to enforce,'' but there is
no hint, no requirement, not a syllable to actually enforce
regulations. This built-in loophole in H.R. 2273 does not require
adequate State inspection of coal ash ponds and landfills, and it
allows States to set up voluntary regulatory programs, which will
clearly not ensure the safe design, the safe operation, and the cleanup
of the Nation's many toxic coal ash disposal sites.
Madam Chair, due to a well-noted case in my district of Crestwood,
Illinois, where contaminated drinking water was piped into the homes of
my constituents for over 20 years, between 1986 and 2007, without any
intervention from either the State or Federal EPA agencies, I, for one,
am very sensitive to this issue.
Since the beginning of this current Congress, the Republican majority
has been on a never-ending, nonstop, forever-and-ever crusade against
the EPA and our Nation's environmental protection laws on behalf of a
few industries and to the detriment of the public good. However, for
many of my constituents, there is no greater role for Congress to play
than to protect their lives, their livelihoods, the livelihoods of
their children, and the lives of their children by ensuring that all
American citizens have access to clean air and clean water.
Madam Chair, I believe that it is a false choice to try to frame
these tremendously important policy decisions under the paradigm of
either clean air and water or jobs and employment. As leaders, it is
our job, it is our responsibility to find the right balance when
crafting legislation so that our constituents are not faced with these
types of lose-lose situations and decisions.
I believe that my amendment will go a long way in trying to make this
legislation far more balanced so that, at the very least, we allow the
Federal Government, our government, to serve as the last backstop for
the American people against companies that will seek to skirt the law
without regard for the families and communities these companies would
do harm to.
{time} 1240
Madam Chair, many of my constituents, they don't have the money. They
don't have the influence that industry has. So they're counting on us,
this Congress, their Congressional representatives, to protect their
interests,
[[Page H6950]]
to fight for them just as those who are fighting for the interest of a
few corporations in this body are doing.
In fact, Madam Chair, I want to end with a quote from a letter dated
July 11 that my office received from a number of ordinary American
families who live by coal ash dumps all across this country.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. RUSH. I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment.
Hon. Fred Upton,
Chairman, House Energy and Commerce Committee, House of
Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Tomorrow, we understand that your
committee will vote on a bill that would leave oversight of
coal ash dumps to the states, and prevent EPA from taking
action against polluters who threaten Our groundwater. We
know Congress has already heard from industry lobbyists, big
contributors, and bureaucrats. But please hear our voices,
since we live near these dumps, and put up with their
pollution year after year.
We know what it is like to suffer through the daily
onslaught of blowing ash, drink water from faucets
contaminated with ash leachate, and see our wetlands and
creeks poisoned with toxic metals like arsenic. We have
complained again and again about the endless noise, dust and
pollution from trucks dumping coal ash near us while we
become more stressed out or sick and the value of our
property plummets, with no real response from our states. Two
years ago, we were promised that the US Environmental
Protection Agency would finally set national standards to
clean up these sites, and close the most dangerous ones.
Now we face legislation that would stop EPA in its tracks,
and replace real standards with state ``plans'' that
polluters could ignore without fear of enforcement by EPA.
After what is already known about the danger from storing
millions of tons of coal ash in unlined ponds, why would you
tie the government's hands from ever stopping this practice?
Do our lives matter to you?
Is protecting coal ash ``recycling'' more important than
our health or the quality of our water? Even those who
believe that cannot seriously argue that shielding leaking
dumps from EPA enforcement somehow makes recycling easier.
And ash mixed with other wastes in leaking ponds--now a
common practice--cannot be recycled at all.
What will you accomplish by requiring federal and state
bureaucrats to review, and then approve, disapprove, and
reapprove state plans that can never actually be enforced by
EPA against polluters? If your own family's drinking water
was being contaminated, would you think haggling over
``plans'' the right response?
States have had decades to clean up these dumpsites, and
have done nothing--or next to nothing--as contamination has
spread, even after the TVA spill put the issue on the
national news. We know good, hard-working people in our state
agencies, but budget cuts, political pressure, the power of
local polluters, and the lack of any serious oversight or
enforcement from EPA make their job impossible.
Put yourself in our place. Have you lived near a power
plant's landfill or ash pond like we or our neighbors do, and
found out that the water you and your children drink may be
unsafe to drink? How long would you want to wait for your
state agency to do something about the problem? Three years?
Five years? Ten? We have waited that long, and are waiting
still.
As the Americans who live next to our nation's ash dumps,
our opinions should matter. These dumps should have permits
that we can comment on. We need the right to comment on a
solid waste plan. We should be able to object to any permit
or plan that threatens our lives and property, and the
government should be given a deadline to respond. Dumps that
contaminate groundwater should be closed, and the groundwater
cleaned up. And EPA should be able to crack down on
polluters--without having to wade through endless
``planning''--or the bill you pass will mean nothing.
As you consider this legislation, please don't forget about
us. We are not `against the coal industry.' We simply want
the laws that are supposed to protect people to be enforced.
We appreciate your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Joe and Teresa Trotter, 117 South County Road 400 West,
Sullivan, IN 47882.
George Adey, 4082 W Dunes Hwy, Michigan City, IN 46360.
Terry Miller and Barbara Handley-Miller, 4649 David Court,
Bay City, MI 48706.
Patrick Race, 1004 N. Sheridan, Bay City, MI 48708.
Saleh and Hanadi Abu-Hussein, 8424 State Road 64,
Princeton, IN 47670.
George Bink, 6125 E. County Line Rd., Racine, WI 53402.
Vicki Kuzio and Shirley Stribling, 3888 W. Dunes Hwy,
Michigan City, IN 46360.
Ron and Patricia Riley, 8329 W 175 N, Princeton, IN 47670.
Daniel Brand, 5228 County Road A, Sheboygan Falls, WI
53085.
Mike and Rachel Slunder, 8245 W 175 N, Princeton, IN 47670.
Mary Tinsley, 325 Division St., Mount Carmel, IL 62863.
Vicki Hodgson, 15466 N 2250 Boulevard, Allendale, IL 62410.
Amy Bonsall, Labadie Environmental Organization, 4467 Boles
Road, Labadie, MO 63055.
Cathy Schnur, 5337 Heatherfield Ct., Sheboygan, WI 53083.
Norm and Jill Buchmann, 6508 Running Horse Road, Racine, WI
53402.
Raymond and Yelissa Pfeiffer, 806 S Arbor St, Bay City, MI
48706.
Barbara Hugier, 8741 Foley Road, Racine, WI 53402, Oak
Creek/Caledonia coal run power plant (WE).
Michael and Martha Blann, 4919 W County Rd 25 N, Sullivan
IN 47882.
George Bink, 6125 County Line Rd, Racine, WI 53402.
Tammy Krapek, 1252 Williams Port Dr. #I, Westmont, IL
60559.
Kent and Loukia Verhage, 41 E 8th St, Chicago, IL 60605, We
own a place in The Pines, 1709 Birch St, Michigan City, IN
46360.
Sharon and Richard Fineman. 145 Doberman Road. Chester, WV
26034.
Carrie and Keith Bodnar, 658 Johnsonville Road, Chester, WV
26034.
Helen M. Bowen, 174 Red Dog Road, Georgetown, PA 15043.
Gary and Kim Kuklish, 896 Narrows Road, LaBelle, PA 15450.
Yma and Rudy Smith, 826 First Street, LaBelle, PA 15450.
George and Colleen Markish, First Street, LaBelle, PA
15450.
Carmen Smith, 725 Maxwell Avenue, LaBelle, PA 15450.
Helen Byrd, Second Street, LaBelle, PA 15450.
Roberta Evans, 823 First Street, LaBelle, PA 15450.
Gary Craig, 174 Route 168, Midland, PA 15059.
Jarrett F. Jamison, 1085 Fort Martin Road, Maidsville, WV
26541.
Tracey Heinlein, 824 Old Mill Creek Road, Hookstown, PA
15050.
Tom and Marcia Hughes, 956 State Route 168, Hookstown, PA
15050.
Emuel and Mary Lou Byard, 727 Johnsonville Road, Chester,
WV 26034.
Rosella Diaz, 174 Johnsonville Road, Chester, WV 26034.
Monica Burkher, 6625 Kenmore Ave., Louisville, KY 40216,
Cane Run Plant, Louisville.
James and Teresa Taylor, 2591 N 950W Owensville, IN 47665.
Barb and John Reed, Sr., 611 Georgetown Road, Georgetown,
PA 15043.
John Reed, Jr., 4699 Route 30, Georgetown, PA 15043.
Tom and Norma Wilkinson, 242 Cullen Drive, Georgetown, PA
15043.
Terry Stout, 240 Cullen Drive, Georgetown, PA 15043.
Michael and Maryann Steffee, 325 South Main Street, Homer
City, PA 15748.
James McGrath, P.O. Box 62,
Eggleston, VA 24086.
Debbie and Curt Havens, 1134 Pyramus Road, Chester, WV
26034.
Marcy Carpenter, 268 Cullen Drive, Georgetown, PA 15043.
Tyra Collins, 264 Cullen Drive, Georgetown, PA 15043,
Kim and Larry Squires, 3204 US Route 30, Georgetown, PA
15043.
Frank and Loretta Reed, 339 Temple Road, Georgetown, PA
15043.
Fred and Glenna Bleigh, 430 Pole Cat Hollow Road,
Hookstown, PA 15050.
Ray and Pam Reed, 444 Temple Road, Hookstown, PA 15050.
Keith and Jolene Shoenberger, 214 Washington Street, P.O.
Box 6, Georgetown, PA 150.
Robert and Betsy Springer, 3750 W Co. Rd., 100 S Sullivan,
IN 47882.
Stephen and Karen Fox, Formerly of: 1317 Murrey Dr.,
Chesapeake VA 23369, Current address: 3421 Cappahosic Rd.,
Gloucester, VA 23061.
Rhonda Kampmeyer, 145 Francis Drive, Georgetown, PA 15043.
Cathy Titlinger, 29970 Co. Rd. 14, Lamar, CO 81052.
Kathy Nelson, 661 Hill Road, Georgetown, PA 15043.
Petra and Bryan Haynes Family, St. Albans, MO 63069.
Dave and Gail Greeley Family, 674 Lewis and Clark Drive,
Labadie, MO 63055.
Charlene Ward, Labadie, MO 63055.
Don Meyer, 1510 Osage Lane, Labadie, MO 63055.
Jeanette Andrews, 1928 Land of Promise Road, Chesapeake, VA
23322.
Jasmine Flinn, 1928 Land of Promise Road, Chesapeake, VA
23322.
Mr. McKINLEY. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. McKINLEY. Thank you.
To my colleague from Illinois, as the sponsor of this particular
legislation and one of just two engineers in Congress that are licensed
or capable of designing these structures, I wanted to make certain that
in the bill there is the language that you're concerned about; that we
do have the ability--under page 6, if you've not read the bill yet. But
it talks about how that's to be designed, constructed, and maintained
under this language.
So we have to make sure this bill, if we pass it, is going to be
maintained and the State's going to look at it. If
[[Page H6951]]
there's a violation of that, then the EPA can step in. Because please
understand that we've got numbers of protections written into this
bill. The EPA enforcement inspection authority is already there.
Under page 18, if you've read the rest of the bill, it talks about
imminent hazard. They can step in at any time under imminent hazard and
take control over this if they have a problem with it. There's also the
provision for law enforcement.
But, more importantly, if the EPA determines that a particular State
coal combustion residual program is deficient--if it's deficient
because of a lack of proper implementation, there are options available
in the bill for the EPA to step in, administer, and enforce the program
in that State.
My colleague, this amendment, although well intended, is unnecessary.
It's not about giving the EPA authority it does not have and will not
have. It's another vote of no confidence in the State, while, at the
same time, encouraging the EPA to meddle in State matters.
Mr. RUSH. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McKINLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. RUSH. I want to thank the gentleman.
I have read the bill. And under this bill, if a State fails to do an
adequate job of enforcing this program there is only one remedy: EPA
has to take over the entire program. And we all know that having EPA
take over a State's program is unlikely and highly undesirable.
My amendment creates an additional remedy for inadequate State
enforcement that is more measured than taking over a State's program.
It allows the EPA to enforce State requirements if a structure is in
violation and the State isn't doing anything about it. Without this
amendment, a State could fail to implement their program for coal ash
disposal in a way that puts human health and the environment at risk,
and there would be no discrete way for the EPA to intervene to provide
the necessary safeguards.
Mr. McKINLEY. Let me reclaim my time, if I could.
Again, with all due respect, I think there are at least three
components there that you're overlooking in your amendment. One is that
these dams are designed by professional engineers that are stamping and
maintaining and seen by contractors. They have to see that those dams
are maintained, those structures. So there's not a threat.
Second, you have the issue of imminent hazard under page 18. Please
read the bill, and you'll see that they can step in at any time if they
feel that there's a threat. They can step in and take care of that.
And then there are other provisions in there that allow other people
to file class actions or individual actions against this if they feel
it's being violated. So we've got three protections already built into
this bill to take care of the issue, which I agree you can be concerned
about. But it's one thing we made sure was in this bill when it was
drafted.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. RUSH. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in House Report 112-244.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 4. STUDY.
(a) In General.--Not later than 5 years after the date of
enactment of this section, the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency shall submit to Congress a
report containing the results of a study to determine the
long-term impacts of State coal combustion residuals permit
programs on human health and the environment.
(b) Definition.--For the purposes of this section, the term
``State coal combustion residuals permit program'' means a
coal combustion residuals permit program implemented by a
State under section 4011 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (as
added by this Act).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 431, the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the Chairwoman, and I thank the
committee for its courtesies and the Rules Committee for their
courtesies.
It would seem unusual to have a poster that says ``Make It in
America'' on this discussion. But I think I'll lay the groundwork that
we have no angst against the assets and natural resources that are in
this particular country generating opportunities for work. But what my
friends, in putting forward this legislation on the other side of the
aisle, are asking us to do is to take a, if you will, word action and
simply quash the EPA; take a sledge hammer and sledge-hammer the EPA.
And what we're saying is that there is a place for State regulations,
and there is a place for the involvement of the Federal response.
Let me give you the most potent example. In 2008, failure of a coal
ash impoundment in Kingston, Tennessee, spilled more than 5 million
cubic yards of coal ash and will require approximately $1.2 billion for
cleanup. It is a stark reminder that we must have mutual involvement of
the State and the Federal Government.
Now, many of you may have seen the news clips on that story. I
remember seeing a couple come out and look in utter amazement at the
loss of their beautiful property and their home, wondering how they
were going to recoup. We call that a natural disaster.
But the point in this legislation, even as I believe that we have the
opportunity to grow economies with knowing how to do things in the
right way, is that there is a failure to recognize the importance of
the health and the safety of the American people.
My amendment is simply requiring the EPA to study the impact of these
permits on our environment and health. This is a reasonable request,
considering our use of coal generates 130 million tons of waste a year.
The bad part about it is that the Federal Government, the President
of the United States, who has introduced a jobs bill which cannot get
an iota of attention here, is indicating that this bill will be vetoed
because, in fact, what it wants to do is to leave everything to the
State without cooperation.
What I'm suggesting is, let's cooperate. And so my amendment says
that the EPA will have a broad report containing the results of a study
to determine a long-term impact of State coal combustion residuals
permit programs on human health and the environment. It has nothing to
do with shutdown, but it does have to do with saying that the EPA must
have a role in the protection of the quality of life of all Americans.
So, for example, they have a responsibility, as the States do, to
take care of Tennesseans or Illinoisans or Texans who happen to be in
Texas. But remember, folks, we live in America. Most of us don't want
to secede from the Union, if you will, or the Nation, and we want the
protection of the Federal Government.
{time} 1250
That $1.2 billion involves the Federal Government in helping to clean
up what was a disaster. My only point is that we are champions of Make
It In America. We are champions. And on this poster, you will see a
number of individuals--a hard hat, a teacher, and someone who is
dealing with the health and safety of Americans. We are champions of
this. That's why many of us want to vote on the American Jobs Act to
create jobs for our teachers, our firefighters, and our law
enforcement.
But I would share with you that these are also Americans whose
quality of life we have to protect. And while we're Making It In
America, while we're manufacturing, while we have the assets that this
bill attempts to address, can we also respect the quality of life of
our children and our seniors
[[Page H6952]]
and those who suffer from respiratory ailments and individuals that are
pregnant and newborns and toddlers who may be impacted by this
particular issue? Kingston, Tennessee, is a Superfund location, as we
speak, because of that terrible disaster.
So I would ask my colleagues to support a simple amendment of
cooperation. That cooperation is for the EPA study to assess the impact
on not only those in a State, but on Americans. I believe that we're
all in this together. We live in a great country, and we're all
patriots.
I might conclude my remarks by saying for those who are on the front
lines fighting for us, they would like us to recognize that it is
important to keep America great. America is great as we build, keep the
quality of life that allows our citizens to thrive and prosper, protect
our seniors, protect our children, protect those families and protect
businesses as they continue to try and do what is right for the
American people. Make It In America the right way. That means the EPA
must be able to do its job as well.
With that, I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.
Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment #4 to H.R. 2273,
``Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act,'' as it requires the
Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a study to determine the
long-term impacts of State Coal Combustion Residuals Permit programs on
human health and the environment.
As the Representative of the 18th Congressional District, located in
Houston, Texas, I understand the role that the coal industry plays in
our economy and will continue to play in the future. As Houston is the
Nation's energy capital. Our Nation needs a concrete and viable
strategy for gaining independence from foreign energy sources.
My amendment is simply requiring the EPA to study the impact of these
permits on our environment and health. This is a reasonable request
considering our use of coal generates 130 million tons of waste. Most
of this waste consists of coal ash which is filled with many life-
threatening substances. The manner in which this coal ash is stored can
have an extreme impact on the environment, public health and public
safety. If this bill prevents the EPA from issuing regulations on this
ash, then the EPA should at least be allowed to review the
effectiveness of state level programs.
I am well versed in the importance of addressing energy industry
concerns. Houston is the fourth most populous city in the United
States, and is home to nearly 3,500 energy companies and related firms.
There is no denying the importance the energy industry has in creating
jobs in Houston and across our Nation.
We must not forget that the coal industry in the United States is
responsible for producing nearly half of our Nation's electricity. At
the same time we must balance environmental and public health concerns.
I understand the need to put the hard-working people back to work, and
I believe it can be done in compromise with the Environmental
Protection Agency.
Every industry has its share of risks. Industries that have a
significant impact on the environment, health and safety of people
living in the United States must meet high standards to ensure that
public health and the environment are protected. The waste produced by
the coal industry should not receive special treatment.
Coal ash is the second largest industrial waste stream in the United
States. Every year, over 130 million tons of coal ash is produced. This
ash contains a significant list of cancer causing and neurotoxin
chemicals including arsenic, lead, chromium, cadium and mercury.
Remember mercury has possible ties to causing birth defects in pregnant
women.
This ash is stored in ponds and landfills around our Nation. Today,
this bill is enabling states to attain permits in order to deal with
this ash. It is important to remember that these byproducts can seep
into our water and fly about our air. This cancer causing ash and we
need to ensure that it is properly regulated.
As it stands most states do not have regulations in place to keep
coal ash, or as I would like to call it toxic ash, safely away from our
air and our drinking water. When this ash is stored in dry, lined
impoundments it is perfectly safe; however when this ash finds its way
into the nearly 500 wet ponds across our Nation, there are serious
risks poised to those living near those locations.
I remember the Exxon Valdez oil spill and the BP oil spills. I was
among the first voices calling for additional scrutiny and stiffening
of safety measures. Well, in Kingston, Tennessee, the residents found
up to a billion gallons of coal ash coating their community.
The Kingston, Tennessee, coal ash spill was 100 times larger than the
Exxon Valdez oil spill and 5 times larger than the BP Deepwater Horizon
oil spill of 2010. In its volume it is the largest environmental
disaster in the United States. It will require approximately $1.2
billion for clean-up. We all pay when these sites fail. This
legislation does not include any language to increase new safety
standards. These decisions are all going to be done at the state level.
When you think about this, remember the residents of Kingston,
Tennessee.
The Kingston disaster should cause each of us to take a look at how
this coal ash is stored and managed. At least every three years since
2002 there have been major breaks in coal ash ponds, this has resulted
in millions of pounds of toxic sludge entering our waterways and
thereby our drinking water sources.
My amendment would require the EPA to study the long-term effects of
these ponds and landfills on public health and the environment. It also
requires that the EPA reports their findings to Congress.
We must take the steps necessary to address this potentially
dangerous hazard. I understand that coal ash can be stored safely, I
just want to ensure that it is stored properly.
Mr. SHIMKUS. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Let me thank my colleague for offering an amendment to the bill.
A couple of things have been discussed during the debate. Obviously,
she mentioned Kingston, Tennessee. What she has to remember is that was
TVA. That was a government entity. That wasn't a natural disaster. That
was a manmade disaster by a Federal Government, in essence, an agency.
I've stated numerous times what this bill does. It sets a standard
that the States have to comply with to get certified by the EPA. Of
course, in that process, under Federal law currently and locally, there
is an opportunity for comment.
In addition, EPA, within the last week, announced that soon it will
be seeking comments under the Notice of Data Availability, or what is
referred to as NODA, on the adequacy of State programs--this would fall
directly in this; that's why this amendment is duplicative--as well as
the State's comments on EPA's proposed rule for coal ash.
This NODA was not required by law and certainly was not the result of
a statute. This is something that the agency is doing. While the study
is found to be innocuous, it does have a cost to taxpayers and the
agency, and so in that aspect.
My colleague also is following this a little bit. The debate is coal
ash, or fly ash, which is in impounded areas that we are now going to
have some standards and liners, is used in recycling. It's used in road
construction. It's used in building schools. The whole reason why we're
here today is to ensure that the recycling sector can still do that if
the EPA continues to label it as ``toxic,'' which does not meet the
standard of a toxicity based upon an analysis.
I love this, ``toxic sludge.'' You can pick up dirt, and there's
toxic elements in the dirt. The question is: To what standard does it
rise? And if it doesn't rise to the level of toxicity, then it's not
considered. And that's what this debate is all about, allowing the
recycling of this. And if we don't do this, all our landfills will be
filled with coal ash, and then we'll have to build more landfills for
municipal solid waste.
So that's why I appreciate my colleague from West Virginia in this
great piece of legislation. The administration has not issued a veto
threat for this, and I expect it to be well received in the other
Chamber once it moves over.
With that, again, I ask my colleagues to reject the Jackson
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will
be postponed.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will
[[Page H6953]]
now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 112-244 on which
further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Waxman of California.
Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Markey of Massachusetts.
Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Markey of Massachusetts.
Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Rush of Illinois.
Amendment No. 6 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Waxman
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Waxman) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 171,
noes 236, not voting 26, as follows:
[Roll No. 794]
AYES--171
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Gibson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kissell
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--236
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--26
Bachmann
Bass (CA)
Braley (IA)
Coble
Costello
Ellison
Flores
Gallegly
Garamendi
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gosar
Johnson (IL)
Jordan
Kildee
Lewis (CA)
Lummis
McIntyre
Meeks
Paul
Pelosi
Polis
Reyes
Slaughter
Sullivan
Wilson (FL)
{time} 1322
Messrs. GRIFFITH of Virginia, POMPEO, HERGER, GRAVES of Georgia,
DENHAM and FORTENBERRY changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. BARROW changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 794, had I been
present, I would have voted ``present.''
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Markey
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Schock). The unfinished business is the demand
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173,
noes 231, not voting 29, as follows:
[Roll No. 795]
AYES--173
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
[[Page H6954]]
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--231
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Forbes
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--29
Bachmann
Bass (CA)
Braley (IA)
Coble
Costello
Ellison
Flores
Foxx
Gallegly
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gonzalez
Gosar
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kildee
King (IA)
Lance
Lewis (CA)
McIntyre
Meeks
Paul
Pelosi
Peterson
Polis
Shuster
Slaughter
Sullivan
Wilson (FL)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1327
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No 4. Offered by Mr. Markey
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 185,
noes 223, not voting 25, as follows:
[Roll No. 796]
AYES--185
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wolf
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--223
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--25
Bachmann
Bass (CA)
Braley (IA)
Coble
Costello
Ellison
Flores
Gallegly
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gosar
Jordan
Kildee
Lewis (CA)
Lummis
McIntyre
Meeks
Paul
Pelosi
Peterson
Poe (TX)
Polis
Slaughter
Sullivan
Wilson (FL)
[[Page H6955]]
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 30 seconds remaining.
{time} 1330
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Rush
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Rush) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 164,
noes 241, not voting 28, as follows:
[Roll No. 797]
AYES--164
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--241
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--28
Bachmann
Bass (CA)
Braley (IA)
Cantor
Cardoza
Coble
Cooper
Costello
Fattah
Flores
Gallegly
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gosar
Jordan
Kildee
Lewis (CA)
McIntyre
Meeks
Paul
Pelosi
Peterson
Poe (TX)
Polis
Slaughter
Sullivan
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
{time} 1334
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chair, during rollcall vote No. 797 on H.R. 2273,
I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``no'' when I should have voted
``aye.''
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174,
noes 235, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 798]
AYES--174
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kissell
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
[[Page H6956]]
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--235
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--24
Bachmann
Bass (CA)
Braley (IA)
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Costello
Flores
Gallegly
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gosar
Jordan
Kildee
Lewis (CA)
McIntyre
Meeks
Paul
Pelosi
Peterson
Poe (TX)
Polis
Slaughter
Sullivan
Wilson (FL)
{time} 1338
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Chaffetz) having assumed the chair, Mr. Schock, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2273) to
amend subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act to facilitate recovery
and beneficial use, and provide for the proper management and disposal,
of materials generated by the combustion of coal and other fossil
fuels, and, pursuant to House Resolution 431, reported the bill back to
the House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the amendment
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. CICILLINE. I have a motion to recommit at the desk, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. CICILLINE. Yes, I am.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Cicilline moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2273 to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
At the end of the bill, add the following section:
SEC. 4. LIFE SAVING WARNING SYSTEM FOR CATASTROPHIC
IMPOUNDMENT FAILURE.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act (including the amendments made by this Act), the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall
require any person who owns or operates a surface impoundment
described in subsection (b) to equip such surface impoundment
with a sufficient system to monitor for, and notify persons
of, a potentially hazardous condition that could lead to
failure of the surface impoundment. In the event a
potentially hazardous condition develops that could lead to
such a failure, the person owning or operating such surface
impoundment shall immediately--
(1) take action to eliminate the potentially hazardous
condition;
(2) notify State and local first responders; and
(3) notify, prepare to evacuate, and evacuate, if
necessary, local residents, personnel from the owner or
operator's property, and any other persons who may be
affected by the hazardous condition.
(b) Surface Impoundments Described.--A surface impoundment
described in this subsection is a surface impoundment--
(1) that is subject to a coal combustion residuals permit
program (as such term is defined in section 4011 of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act, as added by this Act); and
(2) the failure or misoperation of which will probably
cause loss of human life.
Mr. CICILLINE (during the reading). I ask unanimous consent to
dispense with the reading.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Rhode Island?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Rhode Island is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to this bill.
It will obviously not result in any delay. Once this amendment is acted
upon, we will immediately consider the bill.
Mr. Speaker, the people of the First Congressional District in Rhode
Island, much like the men and women from districts and States across
this country, sent me to Congress to focus on our most important
priority as a Nation. That priority is getting people back to work and
putting our economy back on track. And yet here we are again, spending
the time and energy of this Congress not focusing on creating jobs or
reviving our economy, but instead we're spending the time and energy of
this body with another piece of legislation that threatens our
environment and fails to protect the health of our communities.
If we're going to be forced by the Republican leadership to spend
time in Congress considering legislation with the potential to
devastate our environment and damage public health, then at the very
least we should allow some semblance of common sense to prevail. At the
very least, those of us in this Congress with a sense of responsibility
for protecting the health and safety of our communities must impress
upon others the inherent dangers in the legislation before us today, a
bill that fails to set sufficient baseline standards for coal ash
storage and disposal, which is why I'm offering a simple,
straightforward amendment that could avert future tragedies, both human
and environmental.
While the underlying premise of this bill threatens the public safety
and health of communities, and while the provisions in this legislation
set insufficient standards to ensure the adequate protection of our
environment and public health, I, like many of my colleagues, am a
pragmatist. I fully understand that, despite my opposition to this
bill, H.R. 2273, it's going to pass the House today. But as a former
mayor, I take the public safety of my community and monitoring and
preparing for and managing disasters very seriously.
The key to this work, the element that saves lives and property, is
early
[[Page H6957]]
warning. Local communities cannot absorb all of this responsibility
themselves. Operators and owners must do their part. And while I oppose
this bill, it's indefensible to let this legislation proceed without
including commonsense emergency preparedness provisions, which is
exactly what this amendment will do.
The 2008 coal ash impoundment failure in Kingston, Tennessee, spilled
more than 5 million cubic yards of coal ash, and you can see it
depicted in these photographs. Over 1 billion pounds of coal ash sludge
swamped houses, filled rivers, and covered 300 acres of land. Three
hundred acres of land covered in coal ash, a substance found to contain
significant quantities of arsenic and other toxins.
Nearly 4 years ago, a coal waste impoundment on Buffalo Creek in West
Virginia burst, unleashing a wave of floods more than 15 feet high,
traveling at a rate of about 7 feet per second. The wave struck the
community living below the impoundment without warning. Within just a
few hours, 125 people were dead--including 30 infants and young
children--more than 1,000 injured, and 4,000 people were left homeless.
Mining officials had been monitoring the rising water levels in the
impoundment for 4 days before it burst and yet never informed the men,
women, and children in harm's way. This amendment will help ensure
these human tragedies and catastrophic environmental disasters never
happen again.
This amendment requires owners and operators of surface impoundments
to equip their facilities with systems to monitor for potentially
hazardous conditions that could lead to a failure of the impoundment.
Further, should a potentially hazardous condition develop at surface
impoundments, this straightforward, commonsense amendment will require
owners and operators to take action to eliminate the hazardous
condition, to notify first responders and take appropriate steps to
notify and/or evacuate residents, personnel, and others who may be in
harm's way.
In the United States right now, there are 49 toxic waste ponds at
risk of catastrophic failure, just like the one that devastated
Kingston, Tennessee. Each year, the United States generates 130 million
tons of coal ash. We need to be prepared.
As the former mayor of Providence, which was the first municipality
in the Nation to receive accreditation from the Emergency Management
Accreditation Program, I understand the importance of preparedness and
the responsibility that comes with it. Monitoring and early warning of
potentially hazardous conditions save lives.
We need to make certain that if this legislation passes, it includes
these commonsense safeguards that will avert another tragedy and
devastation. It's the responsibility of this body to protect the health
and safety of the communities we serve and those affected by the
legislation we pass.
I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment and do all
that we can to avoid this kind of disaster again.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion
to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I do rise in opposition to the
motion to recommit.
On this bill there are two camps in this body: There are Members who
want to stop using coal for energy production as soon as possible and
switch to other alternative energy forms; and then there is the group
that recognizes that coal supplies half of our Nation's electricity and
that, whether we like it or not, it will continue to do so for a fairly
long time, so we need to manage as best we can the residuals left over
after that coal is burned.
It's amazing what clever uses we have found for the coal ash that our
power plants produce. Yes, it's used to strengthen concrete. In fact,
the road builders report that road and bridge building costs will
increase by $100 billion over the next 20 years if we stop using coal
ash in concrete. In fact, the standard, believe it or not, for the
California highway authority is concrete strengthened with coal ash.
The best wallboard, roofing shingles, even bowling balls contain coal
ash.
But not all coal ash is beneficially used. That's why we need to make
sure that what is disposed of will stay managed responsibly. Today
States have a variety of standards for managing disposal of coal ash.
The gentlelady from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) on our committee told us
that her State finds uses for all of its coal ash. Other States have to
deal with disposing of half or more of their coal ash.
Mr. McKinley, the sponsor of this legislation, when he first joined
our committee, he explained to us how the administration's proposals to
regulate coal combustion residuals as though they are hazardous, were
threatening the recycling industry. He asked us to support the bill to
simply set those proposals aside.
We held a hearing on the bill and we heard from a variety of
witnesses--from recyclers, from power plant operators, environmental
groups, and others. But among the most important witnesses was a lady
who spoke for the officials in every one of our 50 States who run the
State solid waste management programs. She had a better idea.
Explaining that States govern solid waste under stringent Federal
guidelines, she asked: Why not do the same with coal ash? We States,
she said, all run our solid waste programs just fine and are careful to
meet the Federal standards for two reasons: First, we want to protect
human health and the environment; and, second, we don't want the EPA
running our programs for us.
So we rolled up our sleeves and drafted such a program--bipartisan,
by the way. We started with the Federal municipal solid waste rules
themselves and saw that most of those would apply very well to coal
ash. Even the EPA said municipal solid waste laws are a good model for
safe management of coal ash. After all, these laws protect us from
everyday household trash that includes battery acid, mercury, paints,
electronic parts, and who knows what else. But then we looked again and
saw that there are different issues with coal ash, so we added some
provisions to take those differences into account and make this bill
even more protective.
The result was the bill before us today that is endorsed by one of
the broadest, most interesting coalitions that we've seen. The
Environmental Council of the States, the 50 heads of the State
environmental departments from Maine to California, strongly endorses
the bill. So do the recyclers. And every Member, I'll bet, has heard
from at least one of them. So do the power plant operators, the coal
producers, the manufacturers, the cement industry, the private sector
labor unions, and, yes, certainly the folks who pay their electricity
bill.
So who's left out? Well, the opponents have really just one thing in
common. They regret that coal is a big energy source, and they think
that the sooner we can get off it, the better. They understand that to
get there, you've got to stop the recycling first and then start
regulating it as though it's hazardous. It's not.
{time} 1350
Even Carol Browner said it's not. She said that in 1993, and she said
that again in 2000.
This bill is a new approach. It's Congress setting the standards and
the States making sure that they are met, as the States know best how
to do.
I ask you to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and vote ``yes''
on final passage.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 172,
nays 238, not voting 23, as follows:
[[Page H6958]]
[Roll No. 799]
YEAS--172
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sherman
Shuler
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NAYS--238
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--23
Bachmann
Bass (CA)
Braley (IA)
Coble
Costello
Flores
Gallegly
Giffords
Gonzalez
Jordan
Kildee
Lewis (CA)
McIntyre
Meeks
Paul
Pelosi
Peterson
Polis
Sewell
Sires
Slaughter
Sullivan
Wilson (FL)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1407
Mr. BROOKS changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 267,
noes 144, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 800]
AYES--267
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--144
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
[[Page H6959]]
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Garamendi
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wolf
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--22
Bachmann
Bass (CA)
Braley (IA)
Coble
Costello
Flores
Gallegly
Giffords
Gonzalez
Jordan
Kildee
Lewis (CA)
McIntyre
Meeks
Paul
Pelosi
Peterson
Polis
Sires
Slaughter
Sullivan
Wilson (FL)
{time} 1414
Ms. BROWN of Florida changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________