Congressional Record, Volume 159 Issue 108 (Thursday, July 25, 2013)

[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 108 (Thursday, July 25, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H5055-H5072]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

COAL RESIDUALS REUSE AND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2013

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 315 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. 2218.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) to preside
over the Committee of the Whole.

{time} 0917

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. 2218) to amend subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act to
encourage recovery and beneficial use of coal combustion residuals and
establish requirements for the proper management and disposal of coal
combustion residuals that are protective of human health and the
environment, with Mr. Bishop of Utah 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.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we have spent much time talking about the need for
Congress to consider jobs legislation. This is a piece of pro-jobs
legislation. This bill is unique because it is also a pro-states'
rights legislation and pro-environment legislation.
But focusing on jobs for a minute, let me explain why a ``no'' vote
is anti-jobs, placing anywhere from 39,000 to 316,000 jobs at risk at a
time when we can least afford it.
We are here because over 3 years ago the EPA put out three proposals
on coal ash, including regulating coal ash as a hazardous waste. This
caused massive uncertainty in the marketplace and created an
unnecessary stigma on legitimate recycling of this product, and I have
a piece of shingle that's made and produced by coal ash.
And the States agree. As highlighted in a letter from the State of
Michigan in support of H.R. 2218:

Enactment would end the regulatory uncertainty that has
hindered our efforts to promote the beneficial use of coal
combustion residuals.

EPA announced in litigation proceedings recently that it will not
have a final coal ash rule before 2014. The fact that EPA continues to
leave a ``hazardous waste'' designation on the table even though three
decades of science and fact point the other way, that coal ash is not
hazardous, it directly is contributing to the loss of current and
future recycling.
Coal ash is not an abstract substance. It is used in important
infrastructure in this country. The American Coal Ash Association
informed us that uncertainty in the marketplace caused by EPA's
proposal to regulate coal ash as hazardous waste is diminishing their
economic prospects down to just 40 percent of eligible coal wastes--and
they support this bill.
This bill establishes a solid framework for regulation of coal
combustion residuals in a manner that is protective of human health and
the environment, or the State environmental regulators--including the
Environmental Council of States, ECOS, and the Association of State and
Territorial Solid Waste Management officials--would not be endorsing
this bill.
Coal ash makes concrete stronger, more durable, and cheaper. A ``no''
vote against this bill means that you support less durable, more
expensive highways, schools, and green buildings. Don't take my word
for it. The American Road and Transportation Builders Association and
many other road and bridge builders, and also the Building and
Construction Trades Union, want this bill because they want high-
quality construction material for buildings, roads, and bridges.
For Members concerned about wall board from China, coal ash is a
stable, domestic source for wall board and will control costs. Don't
take my word for it. The American Forest and Paper Association supports
this bill.
Mine workers across this country need a stable way of having
America's energy future secured. This bill accomplishes that. Don't
take my word for it. Ask the United Mine Workers, who supports this
bill.
Coal ash is recycled and used as a raw material in making cement.
Voting ``no'' means you choose to put coal ash in landfills rather than
putting it back into roads and building projects. Don't take my word
for it. Organizations like Portland Cement Association, the Phoenix
Cement Company, the Wisconsin Ready Mix Concrete Association, and the
Washington Aggregates and Concrete Association all support this bill.
A vote against this bill is a vote for prolonged regulatory
uncertainty. A vote against this bill is a vote to increase costs on
the Federal, State, and local governments and infrastructures. A vote
against this bill is a vote to increase costs on all Americans and to
dare unemployment to go even higher. A vote against this bill is a
direct message to career State employees in States across this country
that you do not trust them to do the right thing regarding regulation
of coal ash.

[[Page H5056]]

This bill is a pro-jobs, pro-environment, anti-bureaucracy bill. If
you want progress instead of process, protection instead of politics,
and jobs instead of continued uncertainty, vote for this bill.
We find ourselves in this morass of regulatory uncertainty because of
the existing approach to environmental regulation. This bill presents a
new approach that will reduce the inefficiencies of the Federal
rulemaking process by setting a national standard in the statute and
charging the States with implementation.
If you support protecting jobs and preserving states' rights, and if
you trust your State environmental regulators to protect your
communities, you need to support this bill and vote ``yes'' on final
passage.
With this, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Today, the House is considering legislation to block EPA from acting
to ensure that toxic coal ash is safely disposed of. Coal ash is the
result of the coal that has been burned, and this coal ash needs to be
disposed of.
Now, what the Republicans who are suggesting this bill be adopted are
suggesting is that we remove public health protections in order to
allow polluting disposal sites to continue with business as usual.
That's a little tough to justify. As we led up to today's debate, we've
heard some outlandish justifications, and I just want to set the record
straight.
First of all, we've been told this is a states' rights bill because
we need this legislation in order for the States to impose adequate
regulation on dangerous coal ash disposal sites. Well, that's not true.
The States can regulate coal ash disposal today and, in fact, many do.
The problem is that many States are not doing a good job.
For example, in Ohio, four coal ash disposal sites have serious
groundwater contamination problems. The coal ash at these sites has
contaminated groundwater with arsenic, mercury, and radioactive levels
of materials higher than allowed under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Well, in total, EPA has identified 133 cases of groundwater and surface
water contamination at coal ash disposal sites. All of this has
occurred under existing law, where State laws can be effective and
States can act. The problem is they're not all acting.
Secondly, the proponents of this bill have argued that we have to
pass this legislation to allow coal ash to be recycled. They argue that
EPA wants to designate coal ash as ``hazardous.'' Well, that isn't what
EPA proposed at all.
They say that this designation would be a stigma on coal ash and
would ensure there would no longer be any market for recycled coal ash,
but that argument is just plain wrong. Hazardous labeling and
restrictions on beneficial reuse are simply not at issue.
When EPA issued its proposed coal ash rule, the agency offered a
couple of alternatives. Neither of these proposals would involve
labeling coal ash as ``hazardous.'' Quite frankly, even if it were
designated ``hazardous,'' that doesn't mean it can't be reused. It can
be reused.
Third, we've been told that we must pass this legislation because
it's a careful compromise from the version of the last Congress. Well,
I'm not sure who was in that compromise because the bill is even worse
than the bill from the last Congress. The Republicans have refused to
work with the Democrats on the committee. There's no bipartisan coal
ash bill in the Senate. And the administration has identified five
problems with the bill that cause it to fall short of protecting human
health and the environment.
Let's focus on reality. This debate is not about a ``war on coal'' or
putting a stigma on coal ash. It's not about whether State governments
are inherently better than the Federal Government. It's not about job-
killing regulations. This debate is about whether or not we're going to
allow coal ash disposal sites to contaminate our water supplies and
threaten human health.
If this bill is enacted, coal ash disposal sites will continue to
pollute our groundwater; and once contamination is confirmed, well,
this bill would allow it to continue for another 10 years--and do
nothing. Then, after that, they might even continue it for another
indefinite period of time. So it will continue to pollute groundwater,
the water we drink, and our water supplies and our water sources.
This bill says that a dump site that is contaminating groundwater
today can pollute for 10 years--more arsenic, more mercury, more lead.
Is that what Members of the House want to vote for? If the owners of
the polluting structure can't control their contamination within 10
years, this bill says States can give them even more time to keep
polluting.
New information released yesterday reveals that three-quarters of
existing unlined coal ash impoundments do not have the space at their
existing location to construct an additional disposal facility. Those
facts practically guarantee that if this legislation were to be
enacted, communities across the country--many of them poor and
minority--will simply have to endure contaminated water, polluted air,
and the risk of catastrophic dam failure. And why? For states' rights,
where the States already have the rights? It's really for polluter
rights. And polluters do not have and should not have a right to
pollute our water supplies.
This can be handled effectively through a serious piece of
legislation that will make clear that public health protection must be
enforced.
I urge my colleagues to tune out the special interest misinformation
that seeks to weaken our laws and prolong pollution, and oppose this
legislation.
No matter how you voted in the last Congress, this bill is worse; and
I urge Members to vote against it today.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleague to look at the 11
additional changes that have been made in this bill versus the last
bill and realize how much we have moved in the direction that he speaks
of.
I now yield 7 minutes to the author of the legislation from West
Virginia (Mr. McKinley).
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2218.
For 33 years, Congress has wrestled unproductively with how to deal
with coal ash, an unavoidable byproduct of burning coal.

{time} 0930

After countless hearings, meetings, and amendments, we come here
today with a solution. Over the past 2\1/2\ years, we've listened to
environmental organizations, industry, Senators, the States, the EPA.
Now the bill has strong bipartisan support with Democrat cosponsors
and a broad coalition of over 300 organizations and businesses,
including State environmental officials, Governors, recyclers,
manufacturers, coal miners, coal operators, and labor unions, just to
name a few.
If we don't act decisively, Congress will once again kick the can
down the road. That would mean the status quo continues.
At the Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing on the draft
legislation earlier this year, EPA Assistant Administrator Mathy
Stanislaus testified that States have the ability to ensure proper
management disposal of coal ash under this legislation. At that
hearing, my good friend from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, asked Mr.
Stanislaus if the EPA was not opposed to this language in the bill.
Stanislaus' response was, ``That is right.''
Even the President has become engaged in this debate. The statement
from the administration this past week noted they appreciate the
efforts of the House and issued no veto threat; no opposition was
expressed. That ought to tell you something.
The opponents of this legislation should read the last sentence of
the administration's statement:

The administration would like to work with Congress . . .
to allow for development, implementation, and enforcement of
appropriate standards for managing coal combustion residuals,
while encouraging the beneficial use of this economically
important material.

Let me show you what we are talking about here. This is a jar of fly
ash. Every day, coal ash is produced in 48 of our 50 States across
America. This is a national issue, not just one for coal States. Over
140 million tons of coal ash are produced annually. Approximately 40
percent of the material is recycled into everyday products used in
households and the construction industry. The remaining 60 percent is
disposed of in landfills.

[[Page H5057]]

Now, 2218 deals separately with both of these issues. The first part
deals with recycling. Early in the Obama administration, the EPA
proposed a rule to declare coal ash as a hazardous material, despite
the fact that under the Bill Clinton administration the EPA had already
determined in 1993 and 2000 that coal ash was not hazardous. Let me
repeat that. They've already said it's not hazardous.
No industrialized nation in the world classifies fly ash as a
hazardous material. Deeming it such would essentially destroy the
ability to recycle coal ash, dramatically increase the cost of
electricity, and crush hundreds of thousands of jobs across America.
The United States already has a much lower rate of recycling than
other countries. Europe recycles over 90 percent of the fly ash; China
over 65; and Japan, 95 percent of their coal ash is recycled. We should
be encouraging recycling, not standing in the way.
The second part of the bill deals with processes for disposing of
coal ash that is not recycled. This section has been significantly
strengthened and provides for all new and existing landfills to be
State-run, using the Federal law known as RCRA, which incorporates
Federal standards and requirements for protecting ``human health and
the environment.''
RCRA's primary goals are to ``protect human health and the
environment, to reduce the amount of waste generated, and to ensure
that wastes are managed in an environmentally sound manner.''
Consequently, under his bill, disposal requirements will require
``composite liners, air quality and dust controls, groundwater
protection standards, emergency action plans, corrective actions for
deficiencies, inspections and structural stability.''
Let me make it clear. If a landfill ever becomes deficient, it must
be fixed--no ifs, ands, or buts. It is just that simple.
For example, under the corrective action under section 4011,
subsection (C)(2)(b):

An owner/operator of a deficient facility is not relieved
of their obligation to develop alternative disposal
capability regardless of whether they have space available
onsite.

For anyone to argue otherwise, perhaps they haven't read the bill.
For the first time, there will be a uniform, national standard for
disposal. Or Congress can do nothing--it can--just as it has been for
the last 33 years. But I don't think we should continue with the status
quo. Working in this bipartisan fashion we've made progress.
After 30 years of debate, it is time for action. Our constituents
deserve protection for their health and environment. This legislation
makes it possible.
We often hear Congress isn't voting on a jobs bill. Mr. Chairman,
there is not a clear jobs bill that we are going to deal with in this
Congress protecting 316,000 jobs across America and preventing utility
bills to increase. We must protect these jobs.
I encourage all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support
this pro-health, pro-environment, and pro-jobs legislation.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the administration and I would like to work
out a bill with the Republicans, but this bill has two problems. After
all is said and done, there is no requirement that they protect public
health and the environment. There's all sorts of language that says we
want them to. But if the States don't do that, the second problem is
there's no enforcement; there's nothing to make them do it.
Now, if you have no real clear standard to protect public health and
no enforcement to make sure public health is being protected, that's a
bill that's asking for continuation of pollution of our groundwater
supplies.
We can work together and get a bill, but this administration has said
it does not adequately protect public health and the environment; it
doesn't address the real problems. Even some of the changes that they
have made have made this bill worse. It is a bill that we should reject
and then go back to the negotiating table.
Mr. Chairman, at this point, I wish to yield 5 minutes to the ranking
member of the subcommittee on the Energy and Commerce Committee, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
Mr. RUSH. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, here we go again with the Republicans spewing their
shamelessly empty rhetoric concerning jobs. Jobs for the American
people might be on their minds, jobs for the American people might be
in their mouths, but jobs for the American people are not in their
hearts.
Mr. Chairman, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are
arguing that we need to weaken our environmental laws to create jobs.
That's incredibly shortsighted. Do we really want to say to the
American people that they must suffer contaminated groundwater, drink
dirty water? Is that what we are saying?
A study from Tufts University shows just the opposite. It's not a
fight between jobs and clean environment, clean water, clean drinking
water. The Tufts study says that we can create tens of thousands of new
jobs by requiring safe disposal of coal ash.

Ensuring that coal ash disposal sites protect human health and the
environment will take work, will create jobs. It will take construction
workers, equipment operators, and engineers to do this work. Let me add
that this is not just makeshift work. These jobs will provide
tremendous benefits to the communities in which they take place. But
these jobs won't happen if we pass this atrocious bill. This bill
simply preserves the status quo and keeps Americans out of work.
Mr. Chairman, when it comes to protecting the public health and
ensuring that all Americans have unhindered access to clean air, land,
and water, I am very sensitive to the issue of ensuring that there are,
at the very least, minimum State or Federal standards and that the U.S.
EPA has the full authority to enforce those standards.
Mr. Chairman, due to a 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 and the State of
Illinois refused to intervene, I cannot support legislation that bars
the U.S. EPA from enforcing State or Federal standards, as this
atrocious, shameful bill does.
Mr. Chairman, states' rights might mean States' inaction, as in the
case of Crestwood, Illinois, where it was only the determined,
courageous act of a citizen by the name of Tricia Krause, who had the
courage to alert the media to this shameful act being committed by
elected officials, those responsible for taking care of the public
health and ensuring that the environment was safe and the water that in
the morning and the evening during the day that they drank was safe.
These officials, these local officials, had that responsibility, and
they turned their backs on the people of the village of Crestwood.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. RUSH. Not only did they turn their backs, but the Illinois EPA,
the State EPA, refused to even investigate this matter. I had to get
the U.S. Justice Department and the U.S. EPA to end this atrocity.
If this bill is ever enacted, it will bar the Federal Government, at
the very least, from serving as the last backstop for the American
people against polluters who would seek to skirt the law without regard
to the families and communities that they would harm.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that the people who are Members of this Congress
who have a heart and a mind to not only put the American people back to
work, but also to protect the environment, to resist this effort and
vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I remind my colleagues that the
administration has not issued a veto threat on this bill.
I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs.
Blackburn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from West
Virginia for his outstanding work on this legislation, and also to Mr.
Shimkus, who is the chairman of the subcommittee, for his leadership on
the issue.
I do rise today in support of the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management
Act of 2013. I am an original cosponsor on that legislation.
Now, I think it comes as no surprise to anybody that this
administration has declared their war on coal. You can

[[Page H5058]]

listen to the comments that are coming out of the President and his
advisers there at the White House. They've done everything in their
power to shut down coal plants and to put American coal miners on the
unemployment line.
The EPA has targeted everything from existing coal-fired plants to
new plants, coal mining operations, and has been looking at labeling
coal ash as a hazardous waste since 2010.

{time} 0945

Now, unbeknownst to so many individuals and to so many of my
constituents is the fact that the same coal ash that has been used
safely to make--and get this--bricks, cement, asphalt, plastics, and is
used as a filler in wood products is, all of a sudden, a hazardous
waste.
I would like the administration to explain to me if coal ash were a
hazardous waste when they used TARP funding for shovel-ready projects
to repair roads with asphalt containing--guess what--coal ash.
Was coal ash a hazardous waste last winter when it was used in snow
and ice control products to keep roads and pedestrians in Chicago safe?
Or was coal ash a hazardous waste when it was used to build the EPA's
new headquarters?
While I am sure most of my constituents would like to label the EPA's
headquarters as a Superfund site, I would say let's support this bill.
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, if coal ash is reused, it is not a hazardous waste. If
it is stored and leaks into our groundwater or into our drinking water,
it can be very hazardous.
The problem with the Republican bill is that it doesn't clearly state
that public health must be protected, and when they state it, there is
no clear enforcement. The EPA cannot be sure that the job is being
done, and even citizens cannot file lawsuits to require it to be done.
This is a special interest bill that does not serve the interests of
the American people.
I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman who is the ranking member of
one of our energy subcommittees, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Tonko).
Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentleman from California.
Mr. Chair, once again, the House will consider a bill that will
provide the States with what they already have--the authority to
regulate the disposal of coal ash.
H.R. 2218 also virtually eliminates any regulatory role for the
Environmental Protection Agency. Although the bill's title suggests
that it is about the beneficial reuse of coal combustion residuals, it
has little, if anything, to do with promulgating that worthy goal.
No one has disputed that it is preferable to reduce the amount of
coal ash that ends up in disposal facilities. It saves money and
lengthens the productive life of that disposal facility, and it means
that a waste product is put to productive use in cement, in wallboard
and in other products. All of those things happen now, and they will
happen whether this bill passes or not. Actually, if the bill
encouraged stronger standards for disposal, it would likely spur
increased recycling--another opportunity squandered, in my opinion.
So, if it is not about recycling, what is this bill about?
It is about maintaining the status quo. The bill virtually ensures
that deficient facilities will, indeed, remain deficient.
What does that mean?
It means that communities in States with weak programs and lax
enforcement remain at risk.
This bill does not set credible standards to ensure that public
health and the environment are protected. Communities whose groundwater
sources are known today to be contaminated by toxins leaching from
unlined disposal ponds will have to wait at least 10 years before a
State would have to act, and even then there are provisions for
granting additional time for an operator to upgrade or repair a leaking
facility. We know from recent experience that some of these facilities
are structurally unsound. A breach in the dam in Kingston, Tennessee,
in 2008, in eastern Wisconsin in 2011, and in Martins Creek,
Pennsylvania, in 2005 all sent coal ash spilling out into waterways and
onto the land.
H.R. 2218 is not going to help us avoid adding accidents to this
list. Very similar bills to this one passed the House several times in
the last Congress. They failed to become law, and H.R. 2218, in my
opinion, is going to follow that same path.
Communities living in the shadows of these facilities deserve to be
protected. There is no reason to allow deficient facilities to pollute
our water and our air and to jeopardize the health of people in
communities across this great Nation. We can do better. We should do
better. My colleagues and I will offer several amendments this morning
that, if adopted, would improve this bill. A better legislative effort
could resolve the uncertainty surrounding this issue and, more
importantly, could ensure that our citizens' health and safety are
protected.
We cannot afford more Kingstons. We do not have to. Without
improvements, this legislation will proceed no further in the
legislative process. Without improvements, it should not proceed any
further. I oppose H.R. 2218 in its present form, and I encourage my
colleagues to do the same.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, let me remind my colleagues of some of the
special interests: United Mine Workers of America, Building and
Construction Trades, and the Transportation Workers of America.
I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the full committee, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2218, the Coal Residuals Reuse
and Management Act, an important and bipartisan jobs bill.
Mr. Chairman, today's vote is the culmination of over a 2-year
pursuit of a thoughtful, sensible and transparent solution to a serious
regulatory challenge; and while the coal ash bill has continued to
improve since we first debated and passed the legislation back in 2011,
we have stayed true to our original principles.
First, the bill sets out strict standards for coal ash management,
but it leaves the permitting program to the States. This approach is
important because it ensures consistent environmental protection but
gives the day-to-day implementation to the States, which have the
combination of expertise and dedication to get the job done right for
their States.
Second, it takes EPA's 3-year-old proposal to regulate coal ash as a
hazardous waste off the table. When EPA first published this proposal,
it knew that it had overreached, but EPA faced a very tough dilemma. It
wanted a permit program for coal ash, but, in fact, the Solid Waste
Disposal Act did not give EPA the authority over coal ash unless it
were labeled ``hazardous.'' This legislation offers a solution.
The administration has stopped asking for the ``hazardous''
designation--and good thing. Beginning this year, EPA stopped seeking
that the Agency, instead of the States, do the permitting. The
administration has come a long way, and we certainly commend it for
that, but, meanwhile, we've been listening to and working with EPA.
On April 11 of this year, EPA testified before our committee. By
moving past the notion that EPA should write regulations for each
State, the administration finally acknowledged that the States are in
the best position to implement coal ash permit programs. After our
hearing, we had additional meetings with EPA to discuss the bill, and
we ultimately made changes that EPA recommended, including adding tough
deadlines for State action.

The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SHIMKUS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. UPTON. This is how the legislative process is supposed to work.
The bill reflects crucial input over the last 2 years from House and
Senate Republicans, Democrats and the administration.
The time has come to put our pencils down and enact this law so that
we can close the regulatory gap. States, utilities, and hundreds of
thousands of workers in the recycling industry have been waiting in
limbo for a resolution. This bill meets those needs, and I urge a
``yes'' vote.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is left
on both sides.

[[Page H5059]]

The CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 13 minutes remaining.
The gentleman from Illinois has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. WAXMAN. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a member who has been
very helpful on this legislation, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).
Mr. LATTA. I thank the chairman for yielding.
I rise today, Mr. Chairman, in support of the Coal Residuals Reuse
and Management Act.
Designating coal ash as a hazardous waste, which the EPA proposed in
June 2010, would not only raise energy prices for families and
businesses, but it would also destroy a large coal ash recycling
industry and all of the jobs that go with it. H.R. 2218 will protect
these jobs by setting minimum Federal standards that the States will be
charged with implementing and by providing regulatory certainty that
has ceased to exist within the coal ash industry since 2009.
If this legislation is not 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
require a ``hazardous waste'' designation. In fact, in the EPA's May
2000 regulatory determination, the EPA 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 and $450 per ton as
opposed to about $100 per ton under the current system. In 2008, 136
million tons of coal ash were generated. That means not passing this
bill could put an additional $20- to $47 billion burden on the
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.
Designating coal ash as a hazardous waste could halt these beneficial
uses, which the EPA estimates will lead to $16.7 billion in increased
costs per year.
It will provide certainty in the coal ash industry, and it strikes
the appropriate balance of strong environmental protection without all
of the economic consequences of a ``hazardous waste'' designation. I
urge support of the legislation.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a very distinguished
member of our committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I would like to thank the ranking member for
allowing me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support for H.R. 2218, the
Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act.
Last Congress, this Chamber twice passed legislation on a bipartisan
basis that was weaker than the bill before us today. Last Congress, the
effort resulted in legislation that would create a State-run waste
disposal program with minimal Federal requirements while assuring that
coal ash can continue to be reused and recycled in everyday products.
The legislation before the House today continues that model but with
even greater environmental protections, including: accelerated
requirements for groundwater monitoring; fixed deadlines for when
problems at an impoundment must be cured; and periodic inspections for
the structural integrity of impoundments.
Currently, there is a patchwork of State programs to regulate the
disposal of coal combustion waste with no Federal oversight.
H.R. 2218 would for the first time establish comprehensive, minimum
Federal standards for coal ash management and disposal and give EPA the
authority to enforce compliance if a State does not establish a coal
residuals permit program or if a State's program does not conform to
Federal requirements.
This legislation would assure that coal ash can continue to be reused
beneficially, which puts billions of dollars in our economy annually
and protects tens of thousands of jobs in the beneficial reuse
industry. Encouraging the beneficial reuse of coal ash ensures that
less of it ends up in landfills, which is good for the environment and
good for our economy.
I know some Members have concerns about the legislation, but we have
worked diligently with the majority and stakeholders to make
improvements in the bill. The assertions by some of my colleagues that
this legislation does nothing to protect the environment are making the
perfect the enemy of the good. Part of legislating is moving the ball
forward, and we cannot continue to work on legislation that simply will
die in the Senate. This bill is a reasonable compromise and a win-win
for the American people, as it will help protect the environment and
create jobs. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, before I yield back my time, I want to
point out to my colleagues that this bill will not make it into law.
The Senate will not accept it, and the President will not support it in
its present form because it doesn't protect public health.
Coal ash contains arsenic, barium, cadmium, lead, mercury, hexavalent
chromium, and other toxic materials. It's a threat, not when the coal
ash is used for other purposes, but when it's in a disposal site and
leaks into our drinking water, and that's what this issue is all about.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. I want to thank my colleague from Texas, who has helped
us move the bill forward.
I would remind my colleagues that the President has not issued a veto
signal on this piece of legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague from
Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

{time} 1000

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for
the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act.
I want to thank Mr. McKinley and his staff for their hard work on
this very important issue.
This commonsense legislation will empower States to safely regulate
coal combustion products by fixed standards without overwhelming State
budgets or customers' wallets. The recycling and reuse of coal
combustion products has great economic and environmental benefits--
creating jobs, reducing emissions, extending the life and durability of
the Nation's roads and bridges, and reducing deposits in landfills and
surface impoundments.
This legislation will provide the certainty States, utilities, and
businesses depend on, all while giving the EPA the authority to protect
the public should a State fail to enforce these strong standards.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), a neighbor to my congressional district.
Mr. BUCSHON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this
legislation.
Every single coal mine in the State of Indiana is in my congressional
district. Coal not only provides thousands of jobs for Hoosiers, but
provides over 90 percent of our State's energy. Coal is a vital part of
Indiana's economy, helping to keep energy prices low and supporting a
robust manufacturing sector.
I disagree with the EPA's position that coal ash should be treated as
a hazardous material. Coal ash has been used in all kinds of other
materials like concrete and has been proven safe when used correctly
and when stored correctly. In fact, the EPA's own studies, as has also
been mentioned, in 1993 and 2000 have stated that coal ash is not a
hazardous material. This legislation allows States to establish their
own regulations for managing coal ash as long as it meets minimum
Federal standards.
Coal is necessary for an all-of-the-above energy plan and is vital to
our Nation's energy production that sustains good-paying jobs, and I
urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.

[[Page H5060]]

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management wrote a letter in support of this bill and its safety and
protection.
Now I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2218.
I heard some comments today about coal ash. Let me be very clear:
coal ash maybe at one point was energetic, but the coal ash we're
discussing here today is inert. It's a lot like dirt, to be quite
honest. As a cochair of the Congressional Cement Caucus, I have the
largest cement producing district in America.
The cement and concrete folks, the industry, is by far the Nation's
largest recycler of coal combustion residuals, or CCRs or coal ash as
it's better known. Each year, more than 11 million tons of coal ash is
recycled in the production of concrete. So this is essential to our
manufacturing sector. Domestic manufacturers typically reuse an
additional 3 million tons of coal ash annually as a raw material in
cement production. The coal ash used in the process serves as a
substitute for key ingredients in cement, which would otherwise be
mined.
Without H.R. 2218, the EPA would be able to classify coal ash as a
hazardous material, which in turn would put an end to this very useful
recycling. Even the continued regulatory uncertainty generated by the
stalled EPA rulemaking would dramatically inhibit the recycling of coal
ash in domestic cement and concrete production.
This recycling includes all kinds of infrastructure products,
including our roads, bridges, homes, schools, and other critical
structures. Coal ash continues to be recycled in a safe and responsible
manner. Whatever issues there have been with coal ash, they have
largely been related to storage. This bill thoroughly addresses coal
ash storage issues, which is really where we should be focused.
Again, H.R. 2218 provides the clarity needed by top recyclers to
continue their efforts and to potentially increase coal ash recycling.
So, again, I ask my colleagues to support passage of this important
piece of legislation that will ensure the beneficial reuse of coal ash.
A ``yes'' vote is the right vote. It is pro-manufacturing. Vote for the
legislation.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
When coal ash is recycled, it is not a waste; and, therefore, EPA has
no jurisdiction. It is not a problem. When coal ash is put into a
landfill or disposal site and leaches into the water, then it is a
problem. This bill doesn't address that problem. It doesn't adequately
ensure protection of the public health; or if they have a law at the
State level that seems to talk about public health, there's no clear
enforcement of it. That is our problem with the legislation.
Recycling coal ash for any purpose doesn't make it hazardous, doesn't
make it toxic. It can be reused, and we want to encourage that. But we
don't want public health threatened. That's what our concern is all
about.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, to my colleague from California, we're
waiting for a few Members. I'm not sure they are going to get here. I'm
willing to have you close, and then I'll close after you're finished.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Knowing that we want to wrap up this general debate, I
yield myself the balance of my time.
I will just repeat that the EPA proposed to act, and that is what has
caused this whole furor. Rather than to discuss what is the appropriate
balance between the EPA and the States, the Republican bill would take
this away from EPA, keep them from regulating, and turn it over to the
States, where the States can already act and many have. They don't need
us to give them the power to act. This bill says it's up to the States.
It doesn't have a uniform standard of protecting public health. It
doesn't require States to have the goal of protecting the public
health. And if the States achieve the goal in their legislation to
protect public health, there's no guarantee of it being enforced
because EPA cannot come back in and enforce the State law and citizens
cannot file lawsuits. That's one of the so-called ``improvements'' that
has been made since the last time this bill was before us. It has
weakened the ability to enforce protection of public health.
So I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and in doing so tell us
to go back and work on the problem and get a real, true bipartisan bill
that can be supported by the majority of the Democrats and by the
President of the United States.
I urge Members to vote against the bill, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
It's been a great debate. It's been a great process. I'll just
summarize some of the issues. Yes, the issue is about beneficial reuse,
like this shingle here; but it's also about the storage.
We were very close to passing this legislation the last Congress, as
the ranking member knows. This bill is better, as my colleague from
Texas says. There are 12 additional changes made in this bill versus
last year's bill that addresses many of the concerns that the minority
asked and also concerns by the Environmental Protection Agency. We
worked very closely with them. That is why--and I'll say it again--the
administration has not issued a veto threat on this bill. That's a
signal that they may have issues, but there's not an outright veto
threat on this bill. That's a signal that we've worked with them to
address some of the major concerns.
Again, I want to highlight some of the special interest groups that
are forcing this legislation, like the United Mine Workers, the
building and construction trades, the transportation workers. Those who
are historically considered in the minority's coalition are now moving
to the pro-job coalition of this bill and hopefully other bills in the
future.
I want to reemphasize that the EPA in 1993 and 2000 stated that coal
ash does not have the characteristics of hazardous waste, including
toxicity, and should not be regulated under subtitle C. That's not us.
That's the EPA, and that's the EPA making that ruling twice.
We believe that the Federal Government can set standards. We believe
that the Federal Government can enforce that the State do
certification, and we trust the States to be able to monitor and meet
the standards. That's why I listed in support the Environmental Council
of the States and Indiana's Department of Environmental Management,
because what they want to do is get a handle on this. And let's not
confuse the issue. If the EPA is able to label fly ash as toxic, it
does depress the beneficial use. So the cheap concrete that's mixed
with fly ash will not be put in. The road mitigation issues which we've
done will not be put in. My colleague, Marsha Blackburn, did a great
job talking about how we use today coal ash and fly ash.
So I want to thank my colleague, Mr. McKinley, for moving this bill
and my colleagues on the subcommittee, who have made the changes and
moved it forward. We look forward to the debates on the amendment, and
we look forward to passing the bill and sending it to the other Chamber
and eventually a signature by the President of the United States.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
2218, the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act. This bipartisan
legislation accomplishes the safe regulation of coal ash without
jeopardizing job growth, raising energy costs, or burdening industry
with costly rulemaking.
H.R. 2218 establishes minimum federal requirements for the disposal
of coal combustion residuals, which would be enforced by state-based
permit programs. Rigid and costly EPA rulemaking will be avoided, tens
of thousands of jobs will be saved, and health and environmental
concerns will be addressed in a measured, responsible way.
According to a recent nonpartisan study, the Environmental Protection
Agency's latest attempt to regulate coal ash as hazardous waste could
lead to net job losses of between 184,000 and 316,000. At a time of
anemic economic growth, this is unacceptable.
Of course, this most recent push is part of a broader ``War on Coal''
by the Obama Administration, which adheres to a radical, dogmatic
notion of environmentalism at the expense of American jobs. It also
proves that the President's claim of an ``all of the above'' approach
to energy policy is an empty promise to the American people.

[[Page H5061]]

Like my colleagues, I care deeply about the environment--Wisconsin
has some of the most beautiful hills, lakes and farmland in the
country. But I also believe we should be mindful of enacting
environmental policies that will have an adverse effect on jobs and
economic growth. Rather than rely on stale partisan talking points,
which result in inflexible, overreaching policy prescriptions, the
President should work with businesses and other affected stakeholders
to craft workable solutions to climate change.
We owe it to the American people to offer viable alternatives to the
President's agenda. The Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act is a
tremendous starting point for a bipartisan discussion on environmental
issues. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this
commonsense alternative to the President's War on Coal.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, our country has 676 existing coal ash
impoundments in 46 States, and an unknown number of ``legacy sites''
that continue to pose risk to our communities--risk of contaminating
the groundwater with arsenic, lead, and mercury or of experiencing
catastrophic failure like we saw in the 2008 Kingston disaster. That is
why action must be taken to ensure that coal ash is either recycled
responsibly or disposed of properly.
However, instead of taking steps to protect the public health and
prevent groundwater contamination around storage sites, today's
legislation authorizes each State to create its own coal waste
management permitting program, with no legal standard to ensure a
minimum level of public safety. Moreover, the nonpartisan Congressional
Research Service has found that the bill would give EPA ``no federal
backstop authority'' to ensure that States enforce their standards.
Mr. Chair, rather than addressing the real danger of improperly
managed coal ash, this bill risks a regulatory race to the bottom,
threatening the safety of all of our citizens. I urge a no vote.
Mr. DeFazio. Mr. 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 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 given that U.S. electric
utilities generate 130 million tons of coal ash every year.
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 coal ash as a hazardous
material, the result of regulating coal ash under Subtitle C, could
have major impacts on the recycling and reuse of coal ash to
manufacture wallboard, roofing materials and bricks, and especially
concrete.
In 2008 alone, the concrete industry used 15.8 million tons of coal
ash in the manufacturing of ready mixed concrete making it the most
widely used supplemental cementing material. When combined with cement,
coal ash improves the durability, strength, constructability, and
economy of concrete.
It also has huge environmental benefits. Using coal ash--an
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 coal ash could put these benefits in
jeopardy. It could make coal ash storage and transportation more
expensive, and create a legal environment that would deter cement
manufacturers from recycling coal 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 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 coal 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 ash.
To ensure EPA gets that message, I supported H.R. 2273 in 2011. The
Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act was 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 RCRA. It was my hope that the U.S. Senate would take this
more targeted approach.
Thankfully, in June of 2013, the EPA published a Federal Register
notice indicating a preference for regulating coal ash under subtitle
D. I appreciate EPA's willingness to be pragmatic and balance the needs
of recyclers to achieve greater environmental protection.
Today we are voting on H.R. 2218, the latest version of the Coal
Residuals Reuse and Management Act. While the bill has been marginally
improved, I believe it is no longer necessary. Assuming the EPA
regulates coal ash under Subtitle D, the recycling and reuse of coal
ash will not be jeopardized, eliminating the need for legislation. By
voting against H.R. 2218, I am thanking EPA for its pragmatic
reconsideration of the June 2010 draft rule and for providing certainty
for coal ash recyclers.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 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. 2218

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Coal
Residuals Reuse and Management Act of 2013''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 2. Management and disposal of coal combustion residuals.
Sec. 3. 2000 regulatory determination.
Sec. 4. Technical assistance.
Sec. 5. Federal Power Act.

SEC. 2. MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL OF COAL COMBUSTION RESIDUALS.

(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:

``SEC. 4011. MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL OF COAL COMBUSTION
RESIDUALS.

``(a) State Permit Programs for Coal Combustion
Residuals.--Each State may adopt, implement, and enforce a
coal combustion residuals permit program if such State
provides the notification required under subsection (b)(1),
and the certification required under subsection (b)(2).
``(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)(3)(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
subsection (f)(1)(A)), 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 implementing agency shall submit to the Administrator a
certification that such coal combustion residuals permit
program meets the requirements described in subsection (c).
``(B) Contents.--A certification submitted under this
paragraph shall include--
``(i) a letter identifying the lead State implementing
agency, 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) an explanation of how the State coal combustion
residuals permit program meets the requirements of this
section, 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;
``(III) public participation process for the promulgation,
amendment, or repeal of regulations for, and the issuance of
permits under, such permit program;
``(IV) statutes, regulations, or policies pertaining to
public access to information, such as groundwater monitoring
data; and
``(V) statutes, regulations, or policies pertaining to
structural integrity or dam safety that may be applied to
structures through such permit program;

``(iv) a certification that the State has in effect, at the
time of certification, statutes or regulations necessary to
implement a coal combustion residuals permit program that
meets the requirements described in subsection (c); and
``(v) copies of State statutes and regulations described in
clause (iv).
``(C) Updates.--A State may update the certification as
needed to reflect changes to the coal combustion residuals
permit program.
``(3) Maintenance of 4005(c) or 3006 program.--In order to
adopt or implement a coal combustion residuals permit program
under this

[[Page H5062]]

section (including pursuant to subsection (f)), the State
implementing agency shall maintain an approved permit program
or other system of prior approval and conditions under
section 4005(c) or an authorized program under section 3006.
``(c) Requirements for a Coal Combustion Residuals Permit
Program.--A coal combustion residuals permit program shall
consist of the following:
``(1) General requirements.--
``(A) In general.--The implementing agency shall--
``(i) apply the subset of the revised criteria described in
paragraph (2) to owners or operators of structures, including
surface impoundments, that receive coal combustion residuals
on or after the date of enactment of this section;
``(ii) with respect to structures that are receiving coal
combustion residuals as of the date of enactment of this
section, take the actions required under paragraph (3);
``(iii) impose requirements for surface impoundments that
do not meet certain criteria pursuant to paragraph (4); and
``(iv) require that closure of structures occur in
accordance with paragraph (5).
``(B) Structural integrity.--
``(i) Engineering certification.--The implementing agency
shall require that an independent registered professional
engineer certify that--

``(I) the design of each structure that receives coal
combustion residuals on or after the date of enactment of
this section is in accordance with recognized and generally
accepted good engineering practices for containment of the
maximum volume of coal combustion residuals and liquids which
can be impounded therein; and
``(II) the construction and maintenance of the structure
will ensure structural stability.

``(ii) Emergency action plan.--The implementing agency
shall require that the owner or operator of any structure
that is a surface impoundment that receives coal combustion
residuals on or after the date of enactment of this section
and that is classified by the State 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) prepare and maintain an
emergency action plan that identifies responsible persons and
actions to be taken in the event of a dam safety emergency.
``(iii) Inspection.--

``(I) In general.--The implementing agency shall require
that structures that are surface impoundments that receive
coal combustion residuals on or after the date of enactment
of this section be inspected not less than annually by an
independent registered professional engineer to assure that
the design, operation, and maintenance of the surface
impoundment is in accordance with recognized and generally
accepted good engineering practices for containment of the
maximum volume of coal combustion residuals and liquids which
can be impounded therein, so as to ensure dam stability.
``(II) Potentially hazardous conditions.--The implementing
agency shall require that if an inspection under subclause
(I), or a periodic evaluation under clause (iv), reveals a
potentially hazardous condition, the owner or operator of the
structure shall immediately take action to mitigate the
potentially hazardous condition and notify appropriate State
and local first responders.

``(iv) Periodic evaluation.--The implementing agency shall
require that structures that are surface impoundments that
receive coal combustion residuals on or after the date of
enactment of this section be periodically evaluated for
appearances of structural weakness.
``(v) Deficiency.--

``(I) In general.--If the head of the implementing agency
determines that a structure is deficient with respect to the
requirements in clause (i), (iii), or (iv), the head of the
agency has the authority to require action to correct the
deficiency according to a schedule determined by the agency.
``(II) Uncorrected deficiencies.--If a deficiency is not
corrected according to the schedule, the head of the
implementing agency has the authority to require that the
structure close in accordance with paragraph (5).
``(III) Dam safety consultation.--In the case of a
structure that is a surface impoundment, the head of the
implementing agency shall, in making a determination under
subclause (I), consult with appropriate State dam safety
officials.

``(C) Location.--The implementing agency shall require that
structures that first receive coal combustion residuals on or
after the date of enactment of this section shall be
constructed with a base located a minimum of 2 feet above the
upper limit of the water table, unless it is demonstrated to
the satisfaction of the implementing agency that--
``(i) the hydrogeologic characteristics of a structure and
surrounding land would preclude such a requirement; and
``(ii) the function and integrity of the liner system will
not be adversely impacted by contact with the water table.
``(D) Wind dispersal.--
``(i) In general.--The implementing agency shall require
that owners or operators of structures that receive coal
combustion residuals on or after the date of enactment of
this section address wind dispersal of dust by requiring
cover, or by wetting coal combustion residuals with water to
a moisture content that prevents wind dispersal, facilitates
compaction, and does not result in free liquids.
``(ii) Alternative methods.--Subject to the review and
approval by the implementing agency, owners or operators of
structures that receive coal combustion residuals on or after
the date of enactment of this section may propose alternative
methods to address wind dispersal of dust that will provide
comparable or more effective control of dust.
``(E) Permits.--The implementing agency shall require that
owners or operators of structures that receive coal
combustion residuals on or after the date of enactment of
this section apply for and obtain permits incorporating the
requirements of the coal combustion residuals permit program.
``(F) Public availability of information.--Except for
information with respect to which disclosure is prohibited
under section 1905 of title 18, United States Code, the
implementing agency shall ensure that--
``(i) documents for permit determinations are made
available for public review and comment under the public
participation process described in subsection
(b)(2)(B)(iii)(III) or in subsection (e)(6), as applicable;
``(ii) final determinations on permit applications are made
known to the public; and
``(iii) groundwater monitoring data collected under
paragraph (2) is publicly available.
``(G) Agency authority.--
``(i) In general.--The implementing agency has the
authority to--

``(I) obtain information necessary to determine whether the
owner or operator of a structure is in compliance with the
requirements of this subsection;
``(II) conduct or require monitoring and testing to ensure
that structures are in compliance with the requirements of
this subsection; and
``(III) enter, at reasonable times, any site or premise
subject to the coal combustion residuals permit program for
the purpose of inspecting structures and reviewing records
relevant to the design, operation, and maintenance of
structures.

``(ii) Monitoring and testing.--If monitoring or testing is
conducted under clause (i)(II) by or for the implementing
agency, the implementing agency shall, if requested, provide
to the owner or operator--

``(I) a written description of the monitoring or testing
completed;
``(II) at the time of sampling, a portion of each sample
equal in volume or weight to the portion retained by or for
the implementing agency; and
``(III) a copy of the results of any analysis of samples
collected by or for the implementing agency.

``(2) Revised criteria.--The subset of the revised criteria
referred to in paragraph (1)(A)(i) are as follows:
``(A) Design requirements.--For new structures, and lateral
expansions of existing structures, that first receive coal
combustion residuals on or 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, except that the leachate collection
system requirements described in section 258.40(a)(2) of
title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, do not apply to
structures that are surface impoundments.
``(B) Groundwater monitoring and corrective action.--For
all structures that receive coal combustion residuals on or
after the date of enactment of this section, the revised
criteria regarding groundwater monitoring and corrective
action requirements described in subpart E of part 258 of
title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, except that, for the
purposes of this subparagraph, the 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,
establishing a groundwater protection standard, and
assessment of corrective measures, the constituents aluminum,
boron, chloride, fluoride, iron, manganese, molybdenum, pH,
sulfate, and total dissolved solids.
``(C) Closure.--For all structures that receive coal
combustion residuals on or after the date of enactment of
this section, in a manner consistent with paragraph (5), the
revised criteria for closure described in subsections (a)
through (c) and (h) through (j) of section 258.60 of title
40, Code of Federal Regulations.
``(D) Post-closure.--For all structures that receive coal
combustion residuals on or after the date of enactment of
this section, the revised criteria for post-closure care
described in section 258.61 of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, except for the requirement described in
subsection (a)(4) of that section.
``(E) Location restrictions.--The revised criteria for
location restrictions described in--
``(i) for new structures, and lateral expansions of
existing structures, that first receive coal combustion
residuals on or 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 on or after the date of enactment of this section,
sections 258.11 and 258.15 of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations.
``(F) Air quality.--For all structures that receive coal
combustion residuals on or 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.
``(G) Financial assurance.--For all structures that receive
coal combustion residuals on or 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.
``(H) Surface water.--For all structures that receive coal
combustion residuals on or 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.
``(I) Recordkeeping.--For all structures that receive coal
combustion residuals on or after the

[[Page H5063]]

date of enactment of this section, the revised criteria for
recordkeeping described in section 258.29 of title 40, Code
of Federal Regulations.
``(J) Run-on and run-off control systems for land-based
units.--For all landfills and other land-based units, other
than surface impoundments, that receive coal combustion
residuals on or 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.
``(K) Run-off control systems for surface impoundments.--
For all surface impoundments that receive coal combustion
residuals on or 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.
``(3) Permit program implementation for existing
structures.--
``(A) Notification.--Not later than the date on which a
State submits a certification under subsection (b)(2), not
later than 30 months after the Administrator receives notice
under subsection (e)(1)(A), or not later than 36 months after
the date of enactment of this section with respect to a coal
combustion residuals permit program that is being implemented
by the Administrator under subsection (e)(3), as applicable,
the implementing agency shall notify owners or operators of
structures that are receiving coal combustion residuals as of
the date of enactment of this section within the State of--
``(i) the obligation to apply for and obtain a permit under
subparagraph (C); and
``(ii) the requirements referred to in subparagraph (B).
``(B) Compliance with certain requirements.--Not later than
12 months after the date on which a State submits a
certification under subsection (b)(2), not later than 42
months after the Administrator receives notice under
subsection (e)(1)(A), or not later than 48 months after the
date of enactment of this section with respect to a coal
combustion residuals permit program that is being implemented
by the Administrator under subsection (e)(3), as applicable,
the implementing agency shall require owners or operators of
structures that are receiving coal combustion residuals as of
the date of enactment of this section to comply with--
``(i) the requirements under paragraphs (1)(B)(ii) and
(iii), (1)(D), (2)(B), (2)(F), (2)(H), (2)(J), and (2)(K);
and
``(ii) the groundwater recordkeeping requirement described
in section 258.29(a)(5) of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations.
``(C) Permits.--
``(i) Permit deadline.--Not later than 48 months after the
date on which a State submits a certification under
subsection (b)(2), not later than 78 months after the
Administrator receives notice under subsection (e)(1)(A), or
not later than 84 months after the date of enactment of this
section with respect to a coal combustion residuals permit
program that is being implemented by the Administrator under
subsection (e)(3), as applicable, the implementing agency
shall issue, with respect to a structure that is receiving
coal combustion residuals as of the date of enactment of this
section, a final permit incorporating the requirements of the
coal combustion residuals permit program, or a final denial
for an application submitted requesting such a permit.
``(ii) Application deadline.--The implementing agency shall
identify, in collaboration with the owner or operator of a
structure described in clause (i), a reasonable deadline by
which the owner or operator shall submit a permit application
under such clause.
``(D) Interim operation.--
``(i) Prior to deadlines.--With respect to any period of
time on or after the date of enactment of this section but
prior to the applicable deadline in subparagraph (B), the
owner or operator of a structure that is receiving coal
combustion residuals as of the date of enactment of this
section may continue to operate such structure until such
applicable deadline under the applicable authority in effect.
``(ii) Prior to permit.--Unless the implementing agency
determines that the structure should close pursuant to
paragraph (5), if the owner or operator of a structure that
is receiving coal combustion residuals as of the date of
enactment of this section meets the requirements referred to
in subparagraph (B) by the applicable deadline in such
subparagraph, the owner or operator may operate the structure
until such time as the implementing agency issues, under
subparagraph (C), a final permit incorporating the
requirements of the coal combustion residuals permit program,
or a final denial for an application submitted requesting
such a permit.
``(4) Requirements for surface impoundments that do not
meet certain criteria.--
``(A) Surface impoundments that require assessment of
corrective measures within 10 years of the date of
enactment.--
``(i) In general.--In addition to the groundwater
monitoring and corrective action requirements described in
paragraph (2)(B), the implementing agency shall require a
surface impoundment that receives coal combustion residuals
on or after the date of enactment of this section to comply
with the requirements in clause (ii) of this subparagraph and
clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (D) if the surface
impoundment--

``(I) does not--

``(aa) have a liner system described in section 258.40(b)
of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations; and
``(bb) meet the design criteria described in section
258.40(a)(1) of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations; and

``(II) within 10 years after the date of enactment of this
section, is required under section 258.56(a) of title 40,
Code of Federal Regulations, to undergo an assessment of
corrective measures for any constituent covered under subpart
E of part 258 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, or
otherwise identified in paragraph (2)(B)(ii) of this
subsection, for which assessment groundwater monitoring is
required.

``(ii) Deadline to meet groundwater protection standard.--
Except as provided in subparagraph (C), the implementing
agency shall require that the groundwater protection
standard, for surface impoundments identified in clause (i)
of this subparagraph, established by the implementing agency
under section 258.55(h) or 258.55(i) of title 40, Code of
Federal Regulations, for any constituent for which corrective
measures are required shall be met--

``(I) as soon as practicable at the relevant point of
compliance, as described in section 258.40(d) of title 40,
Code of Federal Regulations; and
``(II) not later than 10 years after the date of enactment
of this section.

``(B) Surface impoundments subject to a state corrective
action requirement as of the date of enactment.--
``(i) In general.--In addition to the groundwater
monitoring and corrective action requirements described in
paragraph (2)(B), the implementing agency shall require a
surface impoundment that receives coal combustion residuals
on or after the date of enactment of this section to comply
with the requirements in clause (ii) of this subparagraph and
clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (D) if the surface
impoundment--

``(I) does not--

``(II) as of the date of enactment of this section, is
subject to a State corrective action requirement.

``(I) as soon as practicable at the relevant point of
compliance, as described in section 258.40(d) of title 40,
Code of Federal Regulations; and
``(II) not later than 8 years after the date of enactment
of this section.

``(C) Extension of deadline.--
``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii) of
this subparagraph, the deadline for meeting a groundwater
protection standard under subparagraph (A)(ii) or (B)(ii) may
be extended by the implementing agency, after opportunity for
public notice and comment under the public participation
process described in subsection (b)(2)(B)(iii)(III), or in
subsection (e)(6) based on--

``(I) the effectiveness of any interim measures implemented
by the owner or operator of the facility under section
258.58(a)(3) of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations;
``(II) the level of progress demonstrated in meeting the
groundwater protection standard;
``(III) the potential for other adverse human health or
environmental exposures attributable to the contamination
from the surface impoundment undergoing corrective action;
and
``(IV) the lack of available alternative management
capacity for the coal combustion residuals and related
materials managed in the impoundment at the facility at which
the impoundment is located if the owner or operator has used
best efforts, as necessary, to design, obtain any necessary
permits, finance, construct, and render operational the
alternative management capacity during the time period for
meeting a groundwater protection standard in subparagraph
(A)(ii) or (B)(ii).

``(ii) Exception.--The deadline under subparagraph (A)(ii)
or (B)(ii) shall not be extended if there has been
contamination of public or private drinking water systems
attributable to a surface impoundment undergoing corrective
action, unless the contamination has been addressed by
providing a permanent replacement water system.
``(D) Additional requirements.--
``(i) Closure.--If the deadline under subparagraph (A)(ii),
(B)(ii), or (C) is not satisfied, the surface impoundment
shall cease receiving coal combustion residuals and initiate
closure under paragraph (5).
``(ii) Interim measures.--

``(I) In general.--Except as provided in subclause (II),
not later than 90 days after the date on which the assessment
of corrective measures is initiated, the owner or operator of
a surface impoundment described in subparagraph (A) or (B)
shall implement interim measures, as necessary, under the
factors in section 258.58(a)(3) of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations.
``(II) Impoundments subject to state corrective action
requirement as of the date of enactment.--Subclause (I) shall
only apply to surface impoundments subject to a State
corrective action requirement as of the date of enactment of
this section if the owner or operator has not implemented
interim measures, as necessary, under the factors in section
258.58(a)(3) of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations.

``(E) Surface impoundments that require assessment of
corrective measures more than 10 years after date of
enactment.--
``(i) In general.--In addition to the groundwater
monitoring and corrective action requirements described in
paragraph (2)(B), the implementing agency shall require a
surface impoundment that receives coal combustion residuals
on or after the date of enactment of this section to comply
with the requirements in clause (ii) if the surface
impoundment--

[[Page H5064]]

``(I) does not--

``(II) more than 10 years after the date of enactment of
this section, is required under section 258.56(a) title 40,
Code of Federal Regulations, to undergo an assessment of
corrective measures for any constituent covered under subpart
E of part 258 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, or
otherwise identified in paragraph (2)(B)(ii) of this
subsection, for which assessment groundwater monitoring is
required.

``(ii) Requirements.--

``(I) Closure.--The surface impoundments identified in
clause (i) shall cease receiving coal combustion residuals
and initiate closure in accordance with paragraph (5) after
alternative management capacity at the facility is available
for the coal combustion residuals and related materials
managed in the impoundment.
``(II) Best efforts.--The alternative management capacity
shall be developed as soon as practicable with the owner or
operator using best efforts to design, obtain necessary
permits for, finance, construct, and render operational the
alternative management capacity.
``(III) Alternative capacity management plan.--The owner or
operator shall, in collaboration with the implementing
agency, prepare a written plan that describes the steps
necessary to develop the alternative management capacity and
includes a schedule for completion.
``(IV) Public participation.--The plan described in
subclause (III) shall be subject to public notice and comment
under the public participation process described in
subsection (b)(2)(B)(iii)(III) or in subsection (e)(6), as
applicable.

``(5) Closure.--
``(A) In general.--If it is determined by the implementing
agency that a structure should close because the requirements
of a coal combustion residuals permit program are not being
satisfied with respect to such structure, or if it is
determined by the owner or operator that a structure should
close, the time period and method for the closure of such
structure shall be set forth in a closure plan that
establishes a deadline for completion of closure as soon as
practicable and that takes into account the nature and the
site-specific characteristics of the structure to be closed.
``(B) Surface impoundment.--In the case of a surface
impoundment, the closure plan under subparagraph (A) shall
require, at a minimum, the removal of liquid and the
stabilization of remaining waste, as necessary to support the
final cover.
``(d) Federal Review of State Permit Programs.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall provide to a
State written notice and an opportunity to remedy
deficiencies in accordance with paragraph (3) if at any time
the State--
``(A) does not satisfy the notification requirement under
subsection (b)(1);
``(B) has not submitted a certification required under
subsection (b)(2);
``(C) does not satisfy the maintenance requirement under
subsection (b)(3);
``(D) is not implementing a coal combustion residuals
permit program, with respect to which the State has submitted
a certification under subsection (b)(2), that meets the
requirements described in subsection (c);
``(E) is not implementing a coal combustion residuals
permit program, with respect to which the State has submitted
a certification under subsection (b)(2)--
``(i) that is consistent with such certification; and
``(ii) for which the State continues to have in effect
statutes or regulations necessary to implement such program;
or
``(F) does not make available to the Administrator, within
90 days of a written request, specific information necessary
for the Administrator to ascertain whether the State has
satisfied the requirements described in subparagraphs (A)
through (E).
``(2) Request.--If a request described in paragraph (1)(F)
is proposed pursuant to a petition to the Administrator, the
Administrator shall only make the request if the
Administrator does not possess the information necessary to
ascertain whether the State has satisfied the requirements
described in subparagraphs (A) through (E) of such paragraph.
``(3) Contents of notice; deadline for response.--A notice
provided under paragraph (1) shall--
``(A) include findings of the Administrator detailing any
applicable deficiencies described in subparagraphs (A)
through (F) of paragraph (1); and
``(B) identify, in collaboration with the State, a
reasonable deadline by which the State shall remedy such
applicable deficiencies, which shall be--
``(i) in the case of a deficiency described in
subparagraphs (A) through (E) of paragraph (1), not earlier
than 180 days after the date on which the State receives the
notice; and
``(ii) in the case of a deficiency described in paragraph
(1)(F), not later than 90 days after the date on which the
State receives the notice.
``(4) Criteria for determining deficiency of state permit
program.--In making a determination whether a State has
failed to satisfy the requirements described in subparagraphs
(A) through (E) of paragraph (1), or a determination under
subsection (e)(1)(B), the Administrator shall consider, as
appropriate--
``(A) whether the State's statutes or regulations to
implement a coal combustion residuals permit program are not
sufficient to meet the requirements described in subsection
(c) because of--
``(i) failure of the State to promulgate or enact new
statutes or regulations when necessary; or
``(ii) action by a State legislature or court striking down
or limiting such State statutes or regulations;
``(B) whether the operation of the State coal combustion
residuals permit program fails to comply with the
requirements of subsection (c) because of--
``(i) failure of the State to issue permits as required in
subsection (c)(1)(E);
``(ii) repeated issuance of permits by the State which do
not meet the requirements of subsection (c);
``(iii) failure of the State to comply with the public
participation requirements of this section; or
``(iv) failure of the State to implement corrective action
requirements as described in subsection (c)(2)(B); and
``(C) whether the enforcement of a State coal combustion
residuals permit program fails to comply with the
requirements of this section because of--
``(i) failure to act on violations of permits, as
identified by the State; or
``(ii) repeated failure by the State to inspect or
otherwise determine compliance pursuant to the process
identified in subsection (b)(2)(B)(iii)(I).
``(e) Implementation by Administrator.--
``(1) Federal backstop authority.--The Administrator shall
implement a coal combustion residuals permit program for a
State only if--
``(A) the Governor of the State notifies the Administrator
under subsection (b)(1) that the State will not adopt and
implement a permit program;
``(B) the State has received a notice under subsection (d)
and the Administrator determines, after providing a 30-day
period for notice and public comment, that the State has
failed, by the deadline identified in the notice under
subsection (d)(3)(B), to remedy the deficiencies detailed in
the notice under subsection (d)(3)(A); or
``(C) the State informs the Administrator, in writing, that
such State will no longer implement such a permit program.
``(2) Review.--A State may obtain a review of a
determination by the Administrator under this subsection as
if the determination was a final regulation for purposes of
section 7006.
``(3) Other structures.--For structures that receive coal
combustion residuals on or after the date of enactment of
this section located on property within the exterior
boundaries of a State that the State does not have authority
or jurisdiction to regulate, the Administrator shall
implement a coal combustion residuals permit program only for
those structures.
``(4) Requirements.--If the Administrator implements a coal
combustion residuals permit program for a State under
paragraph (1) or (3), the permit program shall consist of the
requirements described in subsection (c).
``(5) Enforcement.--
``(A) In general.--If the Administrator implements a coal
combustion residuals permit program for a State under
paragraph (1)--
``(i) the authorities referred to in section 4005(c)(2)(A)
shall apply with respect to coal combustion residuals and
structures for which the Administrator is implementing the
coal combustion residuals permit program; and
``(ii) the Administrator may use those authorities to
inspect, gather information, and enforce the requirements of
this section in the State.
``(B) Other structures.--If the Administrator implements a
coal combustion residuals permit program under paragraph
(3)--
``(i) the authorities referred to in section 4005(c)(2)(A)
shall apply with respect to coal combustion residuals and
structures for which the Administrator is implementing the
coal combustion residuals permit program; and
``(ii) the Administrator may use those authorities to
inspect, gather information, and enforce the requirements of
this section for the structures for which the Administrator
is implementing the coal combustion residuals permit program.
``(6) Public participation process.--If the Administrator
implements a coal combustion residuals permit program for a
State under this subsection, the Administrator shall provide
a 30-day period for the public participation process required
in paragraphs (1)(F)(i), (4)(C)(i), and (4)(E)(ii)(IV) of
subsection (c).
``(f) State Control After Implementation by
Administrator.--
``(1) State control.--
``(A) New adoption, or resumption of, and implementation by
state.--For a State for which the Administrator is
implementing a coal combustion residuals permit program under
subsection (e)(1)(A), or 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, after providing a 30-day period for
notice and public comment, that the State coal combustion
residuals permit program meets the requirements described in
subsection (c); 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 only the deficiencies detailed in the
notice pursuant to subsection (d)(3)(A); and
``(ii) receiving from the Administrator--

[[Page H5065]]

``(I) a determination, after providing a 30-day period for
notice and public comment, 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.

``(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 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.--Program requirements
of, and 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 program requirements, actions, and orders until such
time as--
``(i) the implementing agency changes the requirements of
the coal combustion residuals permit program with respect to
the basis for the action or order; or
``(ii) the State or the Administrator, whichever took the
action or issued the order, 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)(1) 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) 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 subsections (d)
and (e) and section 6005, 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 as affecting the authority of the Administrator
under section 7003 with respect to coal combustion residuals.
``(C) 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
enforcement assistance requested.
``(D) Concurrent enforcement.--Except as provided in
subparagraph (C), the Administrator shall not have concurrent
enforcement authority when a State is implementing a coal
combustion residuals permit program, including during any
period of interim operation described in subsection
(c)(3)(D).
``(E) Other authority.--The Administrator shall not have
authority to finalize the proposed rule published at pages
35128 through 35264 of volume 75 of the Federal Register
(June 21, 2010).
``(F) Other response authority.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed as affecting the authority of the
Administrator under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et
seq.) with respect to coal combustion residuals.
``(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.
``(i) Mine Reclamation Activities.--A coal combustion
residuals permit program implemented by the Administrator
under subsection (e) shall not apply to the utilization,
placement, and storage of coal combustion residuals at
surface mining and reclamation operations.
``(j) 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 all of the
authorities, activities, and procedures that comprise the
system of prior approval and conditions implemented by or for
a State to regulate the management and disposal of coal
combustion residuals.
``(3) Code of federal regulations.--The term `Code of
Federal Regulations' means the Code of Federal Regulations
(as in effect on the date of enactment of this section) or
any successor regulations.
``(4) Implementing agency.--The term `implementing agency'
means the agency responsible for implementing a coal
combustion residuals permit program for a State, which shall
either be the lead State implementing agency identified under
subsection (b)(2)(B)(i) or the Administrator pursuant to
subsection (e).
``(5) Permit; prior approval and conditions.--Except as
provided in subsections (b)(3) and (g), the terms `permit'
and `prior approval and conditions' mean any authorization,
license, or equivalent control document that incorporates the
requirements of subsection (c).
``(6) 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).
``(7) Structure.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the term `structure' means a landfill, surface impoundment,
or other land-based unit which receives, or is intended to
receive, coal combustion residuals.
``(B) De minimis receipt.--The term `structure' does not
include any land-based unit that receives only de minimis
quantities of coal combustion residuals if the presence of
coal combustion residuals is incidental to the material
managed in the unit.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents contained
in section 1001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is amended by
inserting 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.).

SEC. 4. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act,
shall be construed to affect the authority of a State to
request, or the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency to provide, technical assistance under the Solid Waste
Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.).

SEC. 5. FEDERAL POWER ACT.

Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act,
shall be construed to affect the obligations of an owner or
operator of a structure (as defined in section 4011 of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act, as added by this Act) under section
215(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824o(b)(1)).

The CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part A of House
Report 113-174. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as 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. Connolly

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
part A of House Report 113-174.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 6, line 4, strike ``and''.
Page 6, line 6, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 6, after line 6, insert the following new clause:
``(vi) an emergency action plan for State response to a
leak or spill at a structure that receives coal combustion
residuals.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 315, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a commonsense amendment
to ensure that every State that chooses to allow coal ash impoundments
as outlined in this bill has a strong emergency response plan in the
unfortunate event of a leak or spill.
Sadly, the 2008 failure of a coal ash impoundment in Kingston,
Tennessee, highlights the very devastation a spill can have on a
community. As was widely reported at the time, a breach in a surface
impoundment pond at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston

[[Page H5066]]

facility released more than 5 million cubic yards of coal ash, covering
more than 300 acres in toxic sludge, damaging and destroying homes and
property. As we speak, there is still a Federal Superfund cleanup site
where the total cost could top more than $1.2 billion. Absent a plan,
what could go wrong?
Beyond that staggering price tag, let us not forget that the lasting
economic and health impacts in the surrounding communities resulting
from this spill are catastrophic. Families were displaced from their
homes. Some residents still suffer from respiratory illnesses and other
side effects. Arsenic levels where the Kingston coal ash runoff were
disposed of are measured at 80 times higher that the amount legally
allowed under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the EPA already has said
such exposure significantly increases a lifetime risk of cancer. These
are just the impacts we know of today. Who knows what the unknown
health consequences might be.
The Kingston incident is not an isolated event, sadly. According to
Earthjustice, there have been more than 211 known cases of coal ash
contamination and spills in 37 different States. According to the EPA,
45 impoundments are currently considered high hazard, meaning that a
failure will probably cause loss of human life. Of course, this bill
doesn't concern itself with those problems or apply the lessons
learned.
In response to the Kingston incident, former Tennessee Governor Phil
Bredesen even acknowledged that ``the State's environmental
regulations, mostly written in the 1970s, don't take into account a
disaster such as the ash spill and need a top to bottom review.''

{time} 1015

And he said we need a top-to-bottom review of those policies.
As we have already seen, the Federal Government is forced to step in
when disasters such as these take place. Yet, rather than make the
Federal Government a partner, or even a resource, this bill turns sole
responsibility over to the States. There ought to be a clear minimum
set of standards for EPA to identify and remedy State program
deficiencies, stronger groundwater protection standards, and clear and
appropriate authority for taking potential corrective action on unlined
or leaking impoundments. That seems common sense.
The original amendment would have ensured that States certify their
coal ash permitting plans annually, including up-to-date emergency
response plans. The House majority thought regular reporting was
nothing more than a paperwork exercise, so I now offer this revised
amendment in keeping with their concerns to ensure, at a minimum, that
States have thorough and comprehensive emergency response plans to
address a spill or a leak. We cannot simply count on private enterprise
to be prepared for a spill. The State and local governments, who are
the first responders, must be active partners. By requiring them to
provide EPA simply their own emergency response plans, we are taking a
modest step to ensure they are prepared to respond to an emergency.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. I claim the time in opposition, but I don't oppose the
amendment.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Illinois is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague for working
with us and making some changes that we thought were appropriate.
We agree with my colleague from Virginia that States should identify
what their emergency response procedures are in the certification
process, and so we are prepared to accept the amendment. He's made it a
better bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, and I look forward
to working with him.
I yield to the distinguished ranking member.
Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I support your amendment and urge all of our colleagues to support it
as well.
Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the gentleman.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Waxman

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
part A of House Report 113-174.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 6, strike lines 22 and 23 and insert the following:
``(A) In general.--The implementing agency shall apply, and
structures shall meet, requirements as necessary to protect
human health and the environment.
``(B) Criteria.--The implementing agency shall--

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 315, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, under all of our environmental laws, the
Federal Government sets a standard, and then the States implement the
law looking at the different circumstances in their community. For
example, the Clean Air Act says, in effect, everywhere in this country,
we cannot have air pollution that exceeds the standard to protect the
public health, but the States decide the implementation to achieve that
standard.
Under this bill, we're not setting a national standard. We're telling
the States to set a standard. If we're going to let the States set the
standard, my amendment would require that the standard in every State
be to protect the public health, to protect human health and the
environment. That's the goal of these laws, and that should be the
requirement under this law.
The standards are the yardsticks under which we determine whether a
State's effort measures up and ensures a consistent level of protection
throughout the Nation. If we're not going to have a national standard
by EPA, let's require the State to set that standard. This is an
approach that has worked well because it ensures that all Americans
enjoy a minimum level of protection and residents of one State are not
threatened by inadequate laws in a neighboring State.
For example, if one State has a good, strong law to protect the
public health, another State, trying to get the business away from that
State to locate in theirs, will drop their standards lower to try to
entice that business to relocate. The laxest protection becomes the
dumping ground for the neighboring States. We don't want to put States
in a race to the bottom.
When Congress passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, we
assigned EPA a simple mission: to protect human health and the
environment from unsafe disposal of solid waste. Achieving that mission
can be complex, but we have a clear goal. It provides direction for the
Agency's technical work. But the bill we are considering today doesn't
contain this standard.
Disposal of household garbage, for example, must be disposed of in a
way that protects human health. But under this bill, coal ash would not
be required to be disposed of in a way that protects human health.
My amendment would fix this serious problem by calling on the States
to require measures necessary to protect human health and the
environment. If we had the Republicans willing to accept the amendment
that every State have an emergency plan, we're simply asking that every
State have a goal, clearly stated, to achieve the protection of human
health and the environment, otherwise a State's plan is not adequate;
there would be no recourse as long as a State meets all of the other
requirements of this law but still does not get to the goal.
The Congressional Research Service examined this legislation, and
they told us that nothing in H.R. 2218 requires the States to establish
programs that will achieve any specified level of Federal standard or
protection. CRS concluded:

The degree to which a State program may protect human
health from risks specific to coal ash disposal would not be
known until individual States begin to interpret the bill.

[[Page H5067]]

That means the one thing we know for sure is that this bill will take
EPA off the beat--take the EPA off the beat, like we took the SEC and
other regulators off the beat, where Wall Street took huge risks and
drove our economy over the cliff. It'll take EPA off the beat, and then
we'll gamble on each State government doing a good job. That's a pretty
risky gamble. And if it doesn't pay off, who's going to suffer? Well,
the price will be borne by communities in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Alabama and elsewhere whose water supplies will suffer from toxic
contamination.
Members from some of those States come in here and argue we need
those jobs. Well, of course we need the jobs, and we're going to keep
those jobs. But why shouldn't we, in keeping jobs, have waste disposals
be constructed in a way that will not pollute our drinking water and
harm human health?
So I would urge that we set this standard in the bill and adopt this
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McKINLEY. First, I want to just add a congratulations to my
colleague from California whose position apparently has evolved over
the last couple of years, because I remember back in 2011, he had a
problem and voted against the recycling material. So to hear him today
say how he favors, I appreciate that. That was on H.R. 1 in February of
2011.
But as for this amendment, this is not necessary because H.R. 2218
establishes a minimum standard of protection for coal ash permit
programs. The standard of protection is the minimum requirements that
are set out in this bill and includes protections such as groundwater
monitoring; corrective action; financial assurance; specific cleanup
and closure requirements for unlined, leaking impoundments; stringent
structural stability requirements; and fugitive dust controls.
Furthermore, H.R. 2218 establishes a minimum national standard that
is based on the existing criteria for municipal solid waste landfills
which were promulgated by EPA to ``protect human health and the
environment.''
This chart is a collection of some of the elements that are included
in the bill already to deal with standards. Things like requiring that
the structure be located above water tables. Groundwater monitoring is
to be included in this. We have surface water controls under section
4011, controls for CCR landfills, control runoffs for CCR surface,
accelerated corrective action for unlined surface impoundments.
We included in this bill, and if people would read the bill, they
would see that under 4011, there are areas where the EPA can help to
identify deficiencies, including specific criteria for undertaking a
deficiency review. It has a backstop authority to enforce that these
requirements are upheld and to correct any EPA-identified deficiency.
My colleague continues to use this ``race to the bottom'' among
States, and they will compete with each other to become the dumping
ground for neighbor States. That's a misguided assumption and, frankly,
an insult to the hardworking State environmental regulators. It is
unfortunate that he also does not trust the environmental regulators in
his State, or any other State for that matter, to establish permit
programs that are protective. My colleague ignores that the State
regulators are tasked every day with protecting human health and the
environment.
Another problem with this amendment is that, since it is not well
defined, the EPA or a judge would have the sole discretion to determine
what constitutes ``protecting human health and the environment.'' Any
State failing to meet this subjective and ambiguous standard would have
their permit program stripped from them to be run by the EPA.
This amendment diminishes the important role of the States and let's
the EPA meddle in a program the States have proven that they are
capable of handling. This amendment is not about protecting human
health and the environment; it's about growing Federal control at the
expense of the States. States have been tasked with implementing RCRA,
and this bill allows them to continue to do just that.
If you support bigger government, support this amendment; but if you
trust your State to take care of its own people, then we should oppose
it. I urge opposition to this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Waxman).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The 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. Tonko

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in
part A of House Report 113-174.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 34, line 11, strike ``program; or'' and insert
``program;''.
Page 34, line 17, strike ``(E).'' and insert ``(E); or''.
Page 34, after line 17, insert the following subparagraph:
``(G) is subject to a determination under paragraph (5).
Page 35, line 6, insert ``or in paragraph (5)'' after
``paragraph (1)''.
Page 35, line 14, insert ``or in paragraph (5)'' after
``paragraph (1)''.
Page 36, line 1, after ``(e)(1)(B)'' insert ``other than a
determination with respect to a deficiency described in
paragraph (1)(G)''.
Page 37, after line 13, insert the following paragraph:
``(5) Deficiency based on interstate risks.--The
Administrator shall determine a State coal combustion
residuals permit program to be deficient if, at any time, the
State permit program, or the implementation of the State
permit program, threatens human health or the environment in
another State. Any State may request that the Administrator
review another State's coal combustion residuals permit
program for deficiency under this paragraph.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 315, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Tonko) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, we are a Nation of 50 States, but we are
bound together by common history, purpose, and laws.
Prior to the passage of national environmental laws, States had
individual regulatory programs that offered a patchwork of protection.
We tried this system for air, for water, for toxic waste, and for many
other things. That is the system we have today for the disposal of coal
combustion residuals that cannot be recycled. It did not work; it does
not work.
H.R. 2218 will not correct the problems with coal ash disposal. We
have a State-by-State program for coal ash disposal now. H.R. 2218
codifies that situation and goes further to prevent the EPA from
exercising its authority to require that State programs provide a basic
standard to ensure that all citizens are indeed protected.

{time} 1030

My amendment authorizes a proper Federal role, a role of oversight
for the EPA to ensure the actions of one State do not result in
negative impacts on a State with which it shares an important resource.
In addition, my amendment would enable a State to request that EPA
review the permitting program of another State to ensure that the
program offered sufficient protection of its citizens and its
resources.
We do not allow northern States along the Mississippi River to dump
toxic substances into the river for downstream States to clean up. We
do not allow individual States to pollute the air and send the
pollution well beyond their borders.
We need a better system for dealing with coal combustion waste, a
system that applies fairly across our great country.
You might wonder how often the location of a coal ash facility is
near enough to a shared resource or a State's border to cause a
potential problem. Well, it turns out it is common.
The failure of a coal ash facility associated with the Martins Creek
Power

[[Page H5068]]

Plant in Pennsylvania affected communities in New Jersey when coal ash
spilled into the Delaware River.
Residents of the State of Michigan were upset when the failure of an
old coal ash impoundment in Wisconsin sent coal ash, mud, and machinery
into Lake Michigan.
And several of the coal combustion disposal facilities on the high-
hazard list in Ohio and West Virginia are located along the Ohio River,
a shared border and resource of these two States.
Well, I could go on. It turns out that because these facilities are
often located in close proximity to coal-fired utilities where the
waste is generated, they are also close to water required for cooling
and steam generation. A number are located near sizable water sources
that serve multiple communities and often multiple States.
So, in order to ensure good relations between neighboring States, and
to ensure that all our citizens are protected from exposure to the
toxic substances contained in coal ash, I believe the EPA should have
the authority to step in when necessary.
The system we have used successfully, based upon common standards
that ensure the protection of human health and the environment, should
be applied to this situation. We cannot afford another episode like the
one in Kingston, Tennessee.
The choice is not about whether we can have a clean, healthy
environment or a robust economy. We can have both. Part of the formula
for ensuring a robust economy includes having a clean environment.
Pollution is not cost-free. It costs us lost work days, illness, and
premature deaths. It devalues property and results in expensive,
unnecessary cleanup costs. We can do better.
My amendment will improve this bill and protect all our citizens and
their shared resources. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, the State permit program must incorporate
minimum requirements which are based on regulations promulgated by the
EPA to ``protect human health and the environment,'' which include
groundwater monitoring of all structures, fugitive dust control,
structural stability requirements and closure of structures that cannot
be corrected.
The premise of this is, if you have Federal standards, that they're
not protective, and that the States will not do that.
We find this debate very curious, in that my colleagues on the other
side have so much of a disrespect for the States and their
environmental communities and the ability of States to ensure the
protection of human health, the environment from a State position,
Federal standards, State certification process, States.
Under RCRA, the States do this anyway. This is what the States do.
Under the Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Act, the States are the ones
who are enforcing this. All we're doing is saying we can do this now
for fly ash and coal ash.
So while my colleague's amendment is well-intentioned, it really
undercuts the purpose of the legislation and is unnecessary because the
bill contains specific criteria by which the EPA will judge State
permit programs, and I listed those earlier.
This is a politically appealing amendment, but it has many flaws, not
the least of which is that any State can request that EPA review
another State's coal combustion residual permit program, regardless of
the location, and whether there is actually a cross-border impact.
As my colleague pointed out in the Rules Committee on Tuesday,
there's no requirement in this amendment that a State that requests a
review needs to even be impacted by the contamination allegedly coming
from another State.
While my colleague has probably scoured the country to come up with
an example or two of coal ash contamination crossing State lines, the
fact of the matter is that cross boundary is not really an issue with
respect to coal ash disposal because regulation of solid waste disposal
is typically an issue that remains within the State.
This amendment attempts to create another hook for the EPA to measure
State coal combustion residuals permit programs using the subjective
yardstick of what is protective of human health and the environment,
which my colleague did a good job defending in the other amendment.
I understand that my colleague believes that the Federal Government
must step in to save the day, but I trust that our State environmental
regulators are up to the task of making sure that our communities are
protected.
This amendment diminishes the important role of the States, and I
urge opposition to this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I respect the work done by my colleague from
Illinois, but respectfully disagree with his assessment. There's ample
evidence that States have poorly regulated, in some cases, this waste
stream, and it puts at risk innocent bystanders who are impacted by
their actions.
And so I stand by the worthiness of this amendment, and again,
encourage my colleagues to support it.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, 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 New York
will be postponed.

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now resume on
those amendments printed in part A of House Report 113-174 on which
further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Waxman of California.
Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Tonko of New York.
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 185,
noes 231, not voting 17, as follows:

[Roll No. 415]

AYES--185

Andrews
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gibson
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter

[[Page H5069]]

Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--231

Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--17

Barletta
Brown (FL)
Burgess
Campbell
Cassidy
Hanabusa
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Holt
Horsford
McCarthy (NY)
McIntyre
Moore
Nugent
Pallone
Rokita
Young (FL)

{time} 1106

Mr. TIPTON and Mrs. KIRKPATRICK changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Messrs. COHEN, CUELLAR, and VELA changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Tonko

The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko) 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 CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 176,
noes 239, not voting 18, as follows:

[Roll No. 416]

AYES--176

Andrews
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gibson
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--239

Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

[[Page H5070]]

NOT VOTING--18

Barletta
Brown (FL)
Campbell
Hanabusa
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Holt
Horsford
Hudson
McCarthy (NY)
McIntyre
Messer
Nugent
Pallone
Pelosi
Rokita
Smith (NJ)
Young (FL)

Announcement by the Chair

The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1110

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Personal Explanation

Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Chair, on rollcall Nos. 415 Waxman Amend, and 416
Tonko Amend, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on both.
The CHAIR. The question is on the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Woodall) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bishop of Utah, 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. 2218) to
amend subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act to encourage recovery
and beneficial use of coal combustion residuals and establish
requirements for the proper management and disposal of coal combustion
residuals that are protective of human health and the environment, and,
pursuant to House Resolution 315, he 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 any 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.

{time} 1115

Motion to Recommit

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Ms. McCOLLUM. I am opposed to the bill in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Ms. McCollum moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 2218 to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
Page 7, after line 14, insert the following new clause:
``(i) Protecting drinking water and the great lakes.--The
implementing agency shall require that all wet disposal
structures meet criteria for design, construction, operation,
and maintenance sufficient to prevent contamination of
groundwater and sources of drinking water including the Great
Lakes.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill,
which does not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted,
it will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.
This bill is about coal ash. Coal ash is a toxic substance. It
contains lead, selenium, mercury, cadmium, and arsenic. Coal ash is a
deadly poison, and it must be kept out of America's drinking water.
This bill needlessly puts millions of Americans at risk by doing
nothing to prevent coal ash from contaminating groundwater, surface
water, and the greatest supply of freshwater on the Earth--the Great
Lakes. The Great Lakes provide drinking water to more than 30 million
people. Over 1.5 million jobs are connected to the Great Lakes and more
than $60 billion in annual wages.
My amendment protects the Great Lakes from improper and dangerous
storage of coal ash. This amendment ``requires that all wet disposal
structures meet criteria for design, construction, operation, and
maintenance sufficient to prevent contamination of surface and
groundwater.'' This amendment recognizes that the Great Lakes are
unique.
Mayors and Governors in eight States are working together to maintain
this vital ecosystem and economy for families, businesses, and future
generations--even while this House considers an 80 percent cut to the
Great Lakes Restorative Initiative.
In addition, the Federal Government coordinates our efforts to
protect, conserve, and restore the Great Lakes with our partner,
Canada.
The great United States has both a national and international
interest in keeping these lakes clean and safe. Protecting the Great
Lakes should be a priority for this Congress. I am certain it's a
priority for the 30 million people who drink Great Lakes water. Without
this amendment, they will be at risk of drinking cancer-causing toxins.
Right now, coal ash is placed in unlined ponds, some that are leaking,
leaching, and spilling into our soils, lakes, rivers, and aquifers.
In 2011, near Milwaukee, a bluff collapsed, sending a utility
company's coal ash directly into Lake Michigan. Residents could no
longer drink their local water because of severe health threats imposed
by the coal ash.
Should a utility company be able to store tons and tons of coal ash
in an unregulated ravine? The answer is, simply, ``no.''
Unless Congress changes how coal ash is stored, the Great Lakes and
America's drinking water will continue to be at risk. Congress can do
something right here, right now by passing this amendment.
If you want clean and safe drinking water, vote for this amendment.
If you want to protect the Great Lakes, vote for this amendment. And if
you want to protect recreation, manufacturing, and service jobs, vote
for this amendment. If you have the courage to stand up to the
polluters and say no longer will I allow coal ash to be inadvertently
put in our drinking water, causing cancer for millions of Americans,
vote for this amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order, and I claim
the time in opposition.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order is withdrawn.
The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, the basic premise of this bill is that the
Federal Government can set safety standards and the States can enforce
it, so reject the motion to instruct.
I am going to turn my comments to people who live in the coal areas
of our country. Coal is just not a commodity product, it is, really, a
way of lifestyle if you live in coal country.
I am a fourth-generation Lithuanian immigration family. My great-
grandfather went directly into the coalfields. My grandfather went into
the coal mines at age 10. He performed the job of a trapper.
In my hometown of Collinsville, Illinois, we have Miner's Theater; in
a community up north, we have Miner's Park; and in Gillespie, Illinois,
we have Black Diamond Days.
Coal is a culture. Coal is who we are. That is why I really
appreciate my colleagues from West Virginia, David McKinley and Shelley
Moore Capito. There are some States in this Union that coal is their
only job, and that's why they fight and they stand up for coal.
I remember being with the late Senator Byrd in a rally on The Mall to
save coal jobs. He held up his hands and he said, ``There's coal in
these veins.'' This was Senator Byrd--``There's coal in these veins.''
My colleagues and my friends, that's how we feel in coal-producing
States in this country. It is part of who we are. It is our culture.
Now, don't think this is a passe debate. There's a young Iraqi vet
named Jimmy Rose. You may have seen him. He's 32 years old. He's also a
coal miner. He's competing on ``America's Got Talent.'' Do you know
what his song is? His song is ``Coal Keeps the Lights On.'' He talks
about feeding his

[[Page H5071]]

family. He talks about putting coal in the family household. He talks
about that's their livelihood, that's their culture. It's an
impassioned ballad for areas of our country that feel under attack,
left behind, attacked by this administration.
Mayor Dietz from McLeansboro, Illinois, is happy when new coal is
opening up. Coal is keeping the lights on in the small communities and
the shops and stores for a community that's kind of been left behind
for 40 years. He's excited about the jobs and the tax base that's
coming because of coal.
I'm asking you, my colleagues, to stand up for coal, because coal
keeps the lights on. I request that you reject this amendment and
support the underlying bill, and 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.

Recorded Vote

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 5-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-
minute votes on the question on passage of the bill, if ordered, and
the question on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if
ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 192,
noes 225, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 15, as follows:

[Roll No. 417]

AYES--192

Andrews
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--225

Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barr
Barton
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Benishek

NOT VOTING--15

Barletta
Brown (FL)
Campbell
Hanabusa
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Holt
Horsford
McCarthy (NY)
Nunes
Pallone
Rokita
Sires
Wolf
Young (FL)

{time} 1129

So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

personal explanation

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, July 25, 2013, I was unable to
be present for rollcall votes 415, 416 nd 417 on H.R. 2218. Had I been
present, I would have voted: ``yea'' on rollcall vote 415, ``yea'' on
rollcall vote 416, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 417.
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 265,
noes 155, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 418]

AYES--265

Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Beatty
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Doyle
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Enyart
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallego
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Kelly (PA)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick

[[Page H5072]]

Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nolan
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Perlmutter
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vargas
Vela
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOES--155

Andrews
Bass
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Braley (IA)
Brownley (CA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Gabbard
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
O'Rourke
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Wolf
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--13

Barletta
Brown (FL)
Campbell
Hanabusa
Herrera Beutler
Holt
Horsford
McCarthy (NY)
Pallone
Rokita
Serrano
Sires
Young (FL)

{time} 1139

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall 418 on final passage of H.R.
2218, the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act of 2013, I
incorrectly recorded my vote as ``no.'' I intended to vote ``yes.''

Personal Explanation

Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 415 on the Waxman
amendment, I am not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted
``no.''
Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 416 on the Tonko amendment, I am not
recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 417 on the Motion to Recommit, I am not
recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 418 on final passage of H.R. 2218, the
Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act of 2013, I am not recorded. Had
I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Personal Explanation

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I missed the following votes during this week:
On rollcall vote 375, on Passage of H.R. 1542, I would have voted
``aye.''
On rollcall vote 376, on Passage of H. Con. Res. 44, I would have
voted ``aye.''
On rollcall vote 377, on Ordering the Previous Question to H. Res.
312, I would have voted ``aye.''
On rollcall vote 378, on Agreeing to H. Res. 312, I would have voted
``no.''
On rollcall vote 379, Gabbard amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have
voted ``nay.''
On rollcall vote 380, Blumenauer amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have
voted ``aye.''
On rollcall vote 381, Polis amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have
voted ``aye.''
On rollcall vote 382, Blumenauer amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have
voted ``aye.''
On rollcall vote 383, Nugent amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have
voted ``nay.''
On rollcall vote 384, Nadler amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have
voted ``aye.''
On rollcall vote 385, Moran amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have
voted ``aye.''
On rollcall vote 386, Poe amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have voted
``aye.''
On rollcall vote 387, Walberg amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have
voted ``aye.''
On rollcall vote 388, Cicilline amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have
voted ``aye.''
On rollcall vote 389, Cohen amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have
voted ``aye.''
On rollcall vote 390, Coffman amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have
voted ``aye.''
On rollcall vote 391, Garamendi amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have
voted ``aye.''
On rollcall vote 392, Fleming amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have
voted ``nay.''
On rollcall vote 393, Rigell amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have
voted ``aye.''
On rollcall vote 394, Flores amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have
voted ``nay.''
On rollcall vote 395, DeLauro amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have
voted ``aye.''
On rollcall vote 396, Lee amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have voted
``aye.''
On rollcall vote 397, Quigley amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have
voted ``aye.''
On rollcall vote 398, Denham amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have
voted ``aye.''
On rollcall vote 415, on agreeing to the Waxman amendment, I would
have voted ``aye.''
On rollcall vote 416, on agreeing to the Tonko amendment, I would
have voted ``aye.''
On rollcall vote 417, on Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 2218, I
would have voted ``aye.''
On rollcall vote 418, on Passage of H.R. 2218, I would have voted
``no.''

____________________