[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 115 (Wednesday, July 22, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H5358-H5380]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       IMPROVING COAL COMBUSTION RESIDUALS REGULATION ACT OF 2015


                             General Leave

  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to 
include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 1734.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 369 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. 1734.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1602


                     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. 1734) 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. Hultgren 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 New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) 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, in December of last year, EPA put out its final rule 
for coal ash. We applaud EPA's decision to regulate coal ash under 
subtitle D, confirming what we have been saying all along, that coal 
ash is not hazardous.
  All you have to do is talk to any of the thousands of coal ash 
recyclers across the country, and they will tell you that not only is 
coal ash not hazardous, it is an essential component in their product. 
However, the rule remains seriously flawed; and implementation will 
result in confusion, conflict, and a lot of needless litigation.
  A fundamental flaw with the rule is that it is self-implementing, 
which means that, now that EPA has finalized the rule, going forward, 
there will be zero regulatory oversight of coal ash by the EPA. What 
this means is that all of the requirements in the final rule, no matter 
how protective you believe they are, will be interpreted and 
implemented by the utilities with no oversight or enforcement by the 
EPA or the States.
  This leads us to one of the other key flaws with the final rule, 
which is that it is enforceable only through citizen suits. Think about 
that; the final rule sets out a complex set of technical requirements 
for coal ash, but interpreting what they mean and how to implement them 
is left entirely to the regulated community with citizen lawsuits in 
Federal Court as the only mechanism for enforcement.
  This will result in an unpredictable array of regulatory 
interpretations as judges throughout the country are forced to make 
technical compliance decisions that are better left to a regulatory 
agency.
  Under current law, State permit programs will not operate in lieu of 
the final coal ash rule. Even if States adopt the final rule, regulated 
entities must comply with the requirements in the Federal rule and 
their State. This means, even if a utility was in full compliance with 
their State coal ash permit, they could and would be sued for 
noncompliance with the Federal rule.
  The Western Governors' Association said it best in a letter to the 
House and Senate leadership on May 15 of this year:

       Unfortunately, EPA's final rule produces an unintended 
     regulatory consequence in that it creates a dual Federal and 
     State regulatory system. This is because EPA is not allowed 
     under RCRA subtitle D to delegate the CCR program to States 
     in lieu of the Federal program.
       Also, the rule does not require facilities to obtain 
     permits, does not require States to adopt and implement new 
     rules, and cannot be enforced by EPA. The rule's only 
     compliance mechanism is for a State or citizen group to bring 
     a citizen suit in Federal District Court under RCRA section 
     7002. This approach marginalizes the role of State 
     regulation, oversight, and enforcement.

  This brings us to where we are today, in need of legislative solution 
to address the fundamental flaws with the final rule. H.R. 1734 is the 
solution. The bill addresses the self-implementing aspect of the final 
rule, as well as the problem with citizen suit enforcement, by 
establishing enforceable permit programs that directly incorporate the 
technical requirements of the final rule.

  The bill will ensure that every State has a coal ash permit program, 
that every permit program will contain all of the minimal Federal 
standards or something more stringent, and that the technical 
requirements of EPA's final rule are implemented with direct regulatory 
oversight and enforcement.
  The bill requires owners and operators to take actions such as 
preparing a fugitive dust control plan and conducting structural 
stability inspections within 8 months from the date of enactment, which 
makes compliance with these and other requirements directly in line 
with the timeframe for compliance under the final rule.
  Notably, H.R. 1734 also requires owners and operators to begin 
groundwater monitoring within 36 months from the date of enactment with 
State environmental agencies immediately ensuring compliance, rather 
than having to wait for the courts.
  It treats inactive surface impoundments in exactly the same manner as 
the final rule; applies all of the location restrictions from the final 
rule to the new surface impoundments and expansions of existing 
impoundments; and will ensure all relevant information--including all 
information associated with the issuance of permits, all groundwater 
monitoring data, structural stability assessments, emergency action 
plans, fugitive dust control plans, information regarding corrective 
action remedies, and certifications regarding closure--be made 
available on the Internet.
  H.R. 1734 expressly protects the ability to file citizen suits under 
RCRA while ensuring parties to a lawsuit demonstrate actual harm from 
the coal ash and not just that a utility allegedly violated the 
requirements of the rule.
  Some say that the bill ``goes too far'' because it allows States to 
exercise flexibility and make site-specific, risk-based decisions. 
Others say that the bill is a ``giveaway'' to the utilities or that 
allowing the States to exercise the same flexibility available under 
other RCRA permit programs ``weakens'' the requirement of the final 
rule.
  To that, we say H.R. 1734 simply gives the States the same authority 
to implement coal ash permit programs that they have for other RCRA 
subtitle D and even subtitle C permit programs.
  We trust the States are in the best position to analyze the local 
conditions and make risk-based permit decisions. We also know EPA 
trusts the States because EPA relies on the States for the 
implementation and enforcement of RCRA.
  As we have heard before from the Environmental Council of the States 
and the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management 
Officials and from the States themselves, they welcome the new minimum 
Federal requirements, are up to the task of regulating coal ash, and 
strongly support H.R. 1734.
  In addition to ECOS and ASTSWMO, H.R. 1734 enjoys support from a wide 
array of stakeholders, including Utility

[[Page H5359]]

Solid Waste Activities Group, Edison Electric Institute, the National 
Rural Electric Cooperative, American Public Power Association, the 
Western Governors Association I mentioned earlier, American Coal Ash 
Association, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this legislation.
  H.R. 1734, the Improving Coal Combustion Residuals Regulation Act of 
2015 is both unnecessary and dangerous legislation. The administration 
opposes the bill; and, if it somehow passes Congress, it will be 
vetoed.
  The bill is also opposed by over 180 environmental, public health, 
and civil rights groups, including the Sierra Club, the League of 
Conservation Voters, NAACP, NRDC, and Earthjustice.
  They oppose this legislation because it would block EPA's final coal 
ash rule and roll back important protections for human health and the 
environment. EPA's rule has put these protections in place after years 
of hard work and public process.
  Transparency requirements, groundwater protection standards, cleanup 
requirements, location restrictions, and liner requirements all will 
protect human health and the environment. These requirements are long 
overdue.
  Mr. Chairman, we have known for years that unsafe coal ash disposal 
threatens groundwater, drinking water, and air quality. Contaminants 
can leach into groundwater and drinking water supplies or become 
airborne as toxic dust. Aging or deficient impoundments can fail 
structurally, resulting in catastrophic floods of toxic sludge entering 
neighboring communities.
  Contamination can pose serious and widespread health risks. Just last 
year, a coal ash spill in North Carolina affected drinking water 
systems in Virginia. In 2005, a smaller spill in Pennsylvania affected 
drinking water systems in my home State of New Jersey.
  Unfortunately, these incidents are not uncommon. EPA has now 
identified 157 damage cases from coal ash contamination. If EPA's rule 
is delayed or undermined, that number will likely continue to grow.
  At the same time, Mr. Chairman, that EPA's rule includes many 
important protections, it is also balanced and responsive to industry 
concerns. When EPA solicited comments on their proposed rule, they 
heard from coal ash recyclers that they wanted a subtitle D, 
nonhazardous rule. That is what EPA finalized.
  Those in the electric utility industry wanted a subtitle D rule that 
would not require them to retrofit their existing impoundments with 
liners. Again, that is what EPA finalized. States wanted a mechanism to 
set up their own programs to implement Federal standards and to have 
EPA approve them. EPA provided that in the final rule as well.
  EPA's balanced rule has eliminated past justifications for coal ash 
legislation. Past concerns that EPA would not be able to finalize a 
coal ash rule no longer have merit because EPA has done so, and past 
concerns that EPA might regulate coal ash as hazardous no longer have 
merit because EPA finalized a nonhazardous rule and has no plans to 
reverse direction.
  Past contentions that EPA needed legislation to effectively protect 
public health no longer have merit because EPA has confidence that the 
rule will be effective and protective. Past concerns over enforcement 
of a subtitle D rule have been addressed because EPA has established 
mechanisms to review and approve State programs enforcing the rule.
  The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is that legislation is not warranted. 
Even if it were, this bill would not be the vehicle because it 
dangerously eliminates or undermines necessary protections.
  A number of amendments were to be filed to preserve some of the 
important requirements in EPA's final rule, and I understand that some 
of these may be accepted, but I want to stress that these amendments 
highlight only a subset of the problems with this bill. Even if all the 
amendments were adopted, the bill would still be unnecessary and a 
dangerous precedent for public health.
  I urge everyone to oppose the bill, Mr. Chairman, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. McKinley), a real fighter for coal in the country.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, for 35 years, Congress has wrestled with 
how to deal with coal ash, an unavoidable byproduct of burning coal.
  Every day, coal ash is produced in more than 500 coal-fired plants 
located in 49 States, spread across 207 congressional districts. Each 
one of those dots represents where every day in America coal ash is 
being produced. This issue is not a State issue; this is a national 
issue that needs to be addressed. Over 140 million tons of coal ash are 
produced annually in each one of those red dots.
  I recently received a letter of support from the pulp and paper 
industry which recycles fly ash and employs nearly 900,000 people in 47 
States. Their comment, they want to see this bill pass because, ``The 
EPA's proposed regulation provides a complicated approach to enforcing 
the regulation,'' and this bill ``provides clarity and certainty.''
  Now, last year, in December, the EPA issued its regulation--indeed, 
they did--on fly ash. To its credit, the EPA addressed one of the more 
immediate concerns and opted, however, just for now, to regulate coal 
ash as a nonhazardous waste.
  The question legitimately needs to be raised, and it has been: Why is 
this legislation needed?
  It is two issues. First, the nonhazardous designation is not 
permanent; and, secondly, the only oversight mechanism in the rule is 
lawsuits.

                              {time}  1615

  Let's be more specific. The nonhazardous designation is merely 
applicable as long as this rule is not modified. Even in the preamble, 
the EPA indicates they may reverse their decision and ultimately 
regulate fly ash as a hazardous material.
  More specifically from the rule, it says: The EPA is deferring its 
final decision because of regulatory uncertainties that cannot be 
resolved at this time.
  This uncertainty could be devastating to recyclers. The science is 
settled on fly ash, and it should trump political and ideological 
interference. Are we living in a nation of rules and regulation or are 
we living in a nation of laws?
  This bill ensures that the EPA will not be able to retroactively 
reverse its original decision. But secondly and equally and maybe more 
so important is the rule of this omission of specificity and the lack 
of State or Federal oversight of coal ash disposal. And remember what I 
just said, the lack of State or Federal oversight that is provided in 
the rule.
  The way the rule is currently written, oversight will occur only 
through lawsuits, not through regulators.
  The bill, however, addresses regulatory uncertainty by guaranteeing 
that every State will have a coal ash permit program in concert with 
the EPA, but with State oversight and that every program will meet the 
standards set forth under the proposed EPA rule. Nothing in the rule 
was omitted in the legislation.
  Rather, the bill modifies the rule to allow States the flexibility to 
implement an adequate, sufficient, and successful coal ash permit 
program. It simply ensures that the lawsuits are not the only 
regulatory component.
  Let me give you an example on how the language within the rule could 
be a problem. The rule states: The owner or operator of a CCR unit must 
install a sufficient number of wells to yield groundwater samples.
  Mr. Chairman, who defines what ``sufficient'' is? One utility in one 
State may say it is 10 wells. In another State, it may be 20 or 30.
  Under this rule, the decision will be handled by a Federal judge 
rather than a State environmental agency. That is what we corrected 
with this bill. This is not the fly ash bill from 30 years ago.
  We have worked with the EPA in developing this legislation. Perhaps, 
Mr. Chairman, the administration hasn't read the bill because the bill, 
one, codifies the rule. It doesn't eliminate anything. It codifies the 
rule.
  Secondly, it removes the uncertainty with the regulatory designation. 
Three, it enhances oversight. Fourthly, it requires every State to have 
a coal ash program.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.

[[Page H5360]]

  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley).
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chair, in so doing, in providing for the coal ash 
program, we finally have a national system for oversight of dams.
  Think about that. We haven't had that up to this point. That is what 
caused the problem in the first place, was lack of dam safety.
  Secondly, we are going to have enhanced water quality. We are going 
to have improved environmental considerations.
  This rule will go into effect October 19 of this year. Without this 
legislative action, regulatory uncertainty surrounding the disposal of 
coal ash will continue as it has for 35 years.
  It is imperative we pass this bill today and continue to move 
forward. The clock is ticking, and the time is now to finally put this 
issue behind us.
  I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to put 
this issue to rest. We have come to a compromise with the EPA. The 
administration needs to come on board finally.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from West Virginia seems to suggest that this 
legislation will improve enforcement of EPA's important coal ash 
standards.
  If that were true, the public interest groups that have fought for 
strong standards for years would support it.
  Democratic Members that have conducted strong oversight of coal ash 
disasters in the rulemaking process would also support it.
  And the EPA, which has worked for decades to establish effective 
protective requirements, would support it.
  Those environmental groups and public health groups strongly oppose 
this bill, I strongly oppose this bill, and the administration strongly 
opposes the bill.
  That is because this bill is not needed to ensure effective 
enforcement of the EPA's coal ash rule, and it won't have that effect.
  You may hear that EPA's rule will only be enforced through citizen 
suits, and that is simply not true. While citizen suits have been and 
will continue to be an important component of all environmental 
enforcement, States will play an important part in enforcing EPA's 
final coal ash rule.
  They will do so either by bringing citizen suits themselves or by 
incorporating the requirements of EPA's rule into their State programs.
  States want to take on this role. They told the EPA as much in 
comments on the coal ash proposed rule.
  In response to those requests, EPA established in the rule a 
mechanism to review and approve State programs implementing these 
requirements.
  EPA expects the States to make use of this mechanism and implement 
the rules requirements through approved programs. So the claim that 
enforcement will depend exclusively on citizen suits should not be 
believed.
  You have heard also from the chairman of the subcommittee that EPA's 
rule will be plagued by dual enforcement.
  This is the opposite of the claim that enforcement will happen only 
through citizen suits, but is often made by the same parties. This 
claim is also untrue.
  The mechanism EPA set up in the rule will allow for States to get 
approval for their programs, meaning EPA will make clear that they have 
reviewed the State program and found that it is at least as stringent 
as the Federal requirements.
  In other words, EPA will make clear that a facility complying with 
the State program is, without question, also complying with the Federal 
requirements.
  Citizens groups are unlikely to bring suit against facilities in 
compliance. If they were to do so, such suits would not go very far.
  So, Mr. Chairman, contrary to the claim that judges would be 
interpreting the requirements differently left and right, Federal 
judges would defer to EPA's expert evaluations of the sufficiency of 
State programs.
  These enforcement concerns are not the real motivation for this bill. 
As I said, if this is about improving compliance and enforcement, it 
would have widespread support.
  Instead, this bill is about undermining important health and 
environmental protections, and that is why it faces widespread 
opposition.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
southwestern Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), my colleague and next-door 
neighbor.
  Mr. BUCSHON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1734, the 
Improving Coal Combustion Residuals Regulation Act of 2015.
  This legislation will have a direct impact on the constituents in the 
Eighth District because Indiana has more coal ash ponds than any other 
State.
  I was concerned that the EPA's final rule on coal combustion 
residuals lacked clarity and did not adequately address enforcement of 
the Federal minimum standards for public health and safety.
  H.R. 1734 fixes this by giving States like Indiana the authority to 
implement coal ash rules in a way that protects the environment, public 
health, and good-paying jobs rather than totally deferring to 
bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.
  This legislation also reconfirms that recycling this nonhazardous 
material helps keep utility costs low, provides for low-cost, durable 
construction materials and reduces waste.
  I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Under the proven model of environmental regulation, Congress sets the 
standard of protection the State programs must meet. EPA interprets 
that standard through rules or guidance so States know what they must 
do to achieve that level of protection.
  States can demonstrate to EPA that they have in place programs 
adequate to provide the minimum level of protection required, and EPA 
retains backstop enforcement authority to ensure that State programs 
are enforced. This bill, Mr. Chairman, fails on each of these points.
  Unlike EPA's rule, it does not contain any minimum Federal 
requirement to protect health and the environment. It undermines the 
minimum national safeguards in EPA's rule by introducing significant 
discretion. It fails to establish Federal backstop authority. Finally, 
it fails to define what facilities the bill covers instead giving 
States discretion to define the scope of their programs.
  So this proposal will not ensure the safe disposal of coal ash, 
protect groundwater, or prevent dangerous air pollution, and it 
certainly isn't going to prevent another catastrophic failure like the 
one we saw in Kingston, Tennessee.
  I continue to oppose the legislation, just as the administration does 
and just as environmental groups and public health groups do. I urge 
all of my colleagues to do the same.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to my colleague from West 
Virginia, I would just like to mention that, when I mentioned the word 
``RCRA,'' that is a municipal solid waste law.
  What we are doing is the same thing that we did to RCRA: Federal 
standards, State implementation by the State EPA. It is the same thing, 
and all we are doing is codifying that, which means putting these rules 
and regulations in statute, in law, so it can't be changed.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins).
  Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Shimkus 
and Congressman McKinley for all of their hard work on this very 
important issue.
  I rise to offer my strong support for this legislation. This 
bipartisan bill will provide certainty for more than 300,000 workers 
around our country, including thousands of coal miners in my State of 
West Virginia and southern West Virginia, in particular.
  The recycling of coal ash material helps keep America's energy costs 
low. It helps to produce construction supplies that industries across 
our Nation rely on, such as materials for concrete and roofing.
  The EPA's final rule did not address a number of issues, including 
State permitting requirements and oversight.
  This bill puts the States in charge. It gives our States the 
enforcement authority to implement standards for the safe disposal of 
coal ash.
  Our State and local officials know better than Washington bureaucrats

[[Page H5361]]

how to address the regulatory requirements of the rule.
  I urge passage of this bill.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As someone who cares about beneficial reuse and wants to see the 
beneficial reuse flourish, I am listening to this debate.
  And one might think that we are facing a stark choice, either vote 
for this bill or coal ash recycling will stop, but that is not the 
choice that we face.
  When EPA issued its final coal ash rule, they finalized a 
nonhazardous regulation, exactly what the coal ash recycling industry 
sought, and the rule explicitly protects beneficial reuse.
  Many Members of Congress sent letters and submitted comments to EPA 
during the comment period on the proposed rule in support of the 
subtitle, the option they ultimately chose.
  In this bill, on the other hand, the decision between hazardous and 
nonhazardous would be moved to the State level, meaning that these 
materials could be regulated as hazardous in some States, but not 
others.
  Now, how will that avoid the stigma so many in the industry have 
spoken of and how will it create the certainty they crave?
  Even worse, this bill would eliminate important protections in EPA's 
final rule, meaning the number of damage cases is likely to continue to 
grow, and that will really create a stigma around these materials.
  So, if we leave these ash ponds in place and another one fails, what 
will happen to the beneficial reuse industry?
  The way to ensure a strong beneficial reuse industry is to ensure 
consistent regulation and safe disposal of CCR by allowing the EPA rule 
to be implemented.
  Again, that is why I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule if they 
really want to see the beneficial reuse industry flourish.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to my colleague from North 
Dakota, let me just respond in that, in the final rule, they didn't 
close the door to regulating coal ash as toxic.
  They can re-regulate. They can promulgate a new regulation and then 
call it toxic. So then you have the fly ash and the concrete in the 
school and the school has to get torn down because it has got fly ash 
in it? It makes no sense.
  So that is why we need to codify the science, which the EPA has 
twice, now three times, said coal ash is not toxic.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's clarifying the 
statements just made from the other side. I think we all have the same 
goal, but the lack of certainty, when you put in rule that for today we 
are not going to determine it hazardous but we leave the thing open-
ended just in case we change our mind, that is uncertainty. That is 
what we are talking about.
  I come from a State, North Dakota, where, for nearly 10 years, I was 
a coal regulator. I regulated coal mining, among other things, 
including utilities, thank you very much. I appreciate the fact that we 
were able to mine our coal, burn it at the mine mouth, and generate 
some of the lowest cost electricity in the country largely because we 
are able to use the coal ash as a beneficial use for lots of things 
including, by the way, putting in the foundations of wind turbines.
  We didn't need the Federal Government. We have been doing this since 
the 1970s. We didn't need the EPA's overreach to teach us how to do it. 
The regulation of coal ash disposal has been debated for decades--for 
decades. Fortunately, for those of us in North Dakota, we have done 
pretty well with it. We have had modern facilities and modern 
standards.
  Our State regulators at the health department, along with the Public 
Service Commission, working with industry--and I stress ``working with 
industry''--to develop these standards and practices that have worked 
for all these decades really don't need further imposition of the 
Federal Government, and certainly not the EPA.
  All of our regulations are tailored specifically to our coal types, 
specifically to the coal ash, specifically to our geology; and, 
frankly, this legislative approach may not be perfect, but it is better 
than the EPA's proposal, Mr. Chairman, which leaves way too many 
opportunities for extreme environmentalists to meddle, to use the 
courts to come in place throughout the years and impose much more 
extreme regulations.
  I again thank the chairman for his leadership, and I thank the 
gentleman for introducing the bill.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), the ranking member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, once again, the House is considering a bill 
to set standards for coal ash disposal. Unfortunately, H.R. 1734 does 
not contain standards that will prevent the problems from poor disposal 
practices that have plagued communities across the country for far too 
long. H.R. 1734, the Improving Coal Combustion Residuals Regulation 
Act, largely maintains the status quo, a system that is operated by the 
States with no uniform Federal standards, and the status quo isn't good 
enough.
  In the 35 years since Congress passed the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act, or RCRA, the Environmental Protection Agency has been 
studying the issue of coal ash disposal. During this same time, the 
regulation of these facilities has been done by the States, and 
communities in many States have experienced serious problems related to 
improper disposal of coal ash.
  Spills resulting from coal ash impoundment failures have polluted 
water supplies, destroyed private and public property, and resulted in 
lengthy and expensive cleanup efforts. Action on this issue is long 
overdue.
  Last December, the Environmental Protection Agency finalized a rule 
to strengthen the regulations on the disposal of coal ash. The final 
rule was published in the Federal Register in April. The rule was in 
development for many years. It is the result of an extensive public 
process. The Agency sorted through over 450,000 public-submitted 
statements during the comment period on this rule and held eight public 
hearings in communities across the country.
  EPA's rule is responsive to industry concerns that officially 
clarifying coal ash as hazardous waste would harm coal ash recycling 
efforts that utilize coal ash in new materials and products, and the 
rule is responsive to the concerns of public health and environmental 
advocates. For the first time, the rule establishes minimum Federal 
standards that all coal ash disposal facilities must meet. H.R. 1734 
does not do that.
  H.R. 1734 enables States to do what some are doing now, that is, to 
allow continued operation of these facilities without sufficient 
safeguards. H.R. 1734 isn't about providing flexibility in achieving 
better standards. H.R. 1734 allows States to weaken a standard if 
facilities can't meet them.
  The standards set by the rule provide a guaranteed floor of 
protection for all communities. What are these? Well, location 
restrictions. New or expanded areas of existing coal ash facilities 
must now be sited with consideration and defined buffers with respect 
to aquifers, wetlands, seismic impact zones, fault areas, and, indeed, 
unstable areas.
  Liner design criteria are included to prevent leaching. The basic 
requirements in the rule to include both a geomembrane and a 2-foot 
layer of compacted soil can be met with an alternative design if the 
alternative would provide equivalent or better performance.
  Structural integrity requirements are defined in the rule to prevent 
structural failures, such as the one that occurred in Tennessee in the 
year 2008, a failure that caused tremendous damage when an impoundment 
failed.
  Operating criteria are included in the rule to prevent runoff and 
wind-blown dust, require periodic inspection and capacity limits, among 
other things.
  The advocates for H.R. 1734 have expressed concerns about the 
enforcement of EPA's coal ash rule. H.R. 1734 is offered as a remedy to 
this problem. Well, there is no problem. The rule will be enforced by 
the States through their own authorities to operate their solid waste 
management programs. I think that is what H.R. 1734 envisions. The rule 
will also be enforced through citizen suits; and, by the way, States

[[Page H5362]]

sometimes bring these suits against private parties on behalf of their 
citizens.
  Listening to the majority criticize an EPA regulation because of its 
weak EPA enforcement provisions is, indeed, unusual. It is certainly 
not a complaint the Agency hears very often. The coal ash rule 
represents a compromise amongst the stakeholders in this issue. H.R. 
1734 simply does not.
  It is not surprising there are those who are unhappy with certain 
provisions of this rule. H.R. 1734 is on the floor today at the urging 
of some of those stakeholders. Of course, the rule from either vantage 
point is not perfect.
  Given the differing opinions on the role of Federal regulation of 
coal ash disposal and the nature of the standards that should apply to 
these facilities, that is not too surprising. But I do believe this 
legislation--in fact, any legislation--is premature.
  Changes in regulation or in law take a long time, and hitting the 
restart button now will only lead to continued uncertainty and 
continued risk. We have had far too much of those already. I believe 
the rule should move forward. H.R. 1734 would prevent that from 
happening.
  We have had 35 years of weak protection. It has cost us a great deal. 
It is time for a more rigorous and stringent approach that prevents 
spills, water pollution, air pollution, and exposures to toxic 
substances. It is time to put people's health and safety first.
  EPA's coal ash disposal rule was years in the making. We should not 
discard the approach taken in EPA's rule before it has even been 
implemented or evaluated. EPA's rule emerged through an extensive 
public engagement and negotiation process and as a result of years of 
work invested by the interested parties and the Agency. The coal ash 
disposal rule should be implemented and given a fair chance to work. If 
it does not, we certainly retain the option of moving legislation 
forward.

  H.R. 1734 is unnecessary, and H.R. 1734 offers far weaker protections 
than those of EPA's final rule. I oppose this bill, and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time remains for each 
side?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from New Jersey has 14 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Mooney).
  Mr. MOONEY of West Virginia. Mr. Chairman, our coal industry is 
suffering in West Virginia because President Obama's regulations are 
artificially driving down demand for reliable and affordable coal.
  With power plants closing and home energy prices rising, our miners 
are suffering and jobs are being cut due to this administration's 
continuous overreach and interference. That is why Representative David 
McKinley's bill, the Improving Coal Combustion Residuals Regulation Act 
of 2015 is so important to our communities in West Virginia. I am a 
proud original cosponsor.
  I strongly support this legislation because it allows States to adopt 
and implement their own coal ash permitting systems as long as they 
meet basic Federal standards. The States, along with their local 
communities and hard-working coal miners, know best how to implement 
coal ash regulations and will ensure that water quality and the 
environment are protected.
  Being able to recycle coal ash means we can turn our spent coal into 
useful products, like drywall and concrete. This means more mining jobs 
and a healthier economy for West Virginia and all of America.
  I urge my colleagues to join us in voting for H.R. 1734, the 
Improving Coal Combustion Residuals Regulation Act of 2015.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, again, a major reason why so many Members on my side of 
the aisle oppose this bill is because of our concern that coal ash is, 
in fact, toxic. I just want to focus for a few moments on the reasons 
this issue is so important to many Members, i.e., the significant 
health risks posed by the toxic constituents in coal ash.
  Coal ash contains arsenic, antimony, barium, beryllium, cadmium, 
lead, mercury, hexavalent chromium, nickel, selenium, and thallium. 
Those metals are toxic and pose both acute and chronic threats to human 
health and the environment. We have heard several claims today that 
coal ash is not toxic, but the risks posed by these materials, if not 
properly handled, are real and significant.
  EPA finalized the rule for coal ash under subtitle via RCRA, the 
nonhazardous title, but even in that rule the Agency recognized the 
serious threats to public health, saying repeatedly that ash can leach 
toxic metals at levels of concern.
  We now know of more than 150 documented damage cases from coal ash 
pollution. We saw what happened in Kingston, Tennessee. We saw what 
happened in the Dan River. We saw what happened in Martins Creek, 
Pennsylvania. The list goes on.
  Some may try to dispute the empirical evidence, citing an old 
laboratory test for leaching that EPA used in 2000, but that test is 
not the state of the art and has not been for some time. In fact, in 
1999, the Science Advisory Board criticized EPA's use of that test for 
coal ash, suggesting that a new test was necessary. In 2006, the 
National Academies criticized the leaching test as well, saying that it 
was not representative of real-world conditions and may greatly 
underestimate the leaching that occurs. EPA recognized this in their 
final rule.
  I would caution my colleagues against relying too heavily on that 
outdated test or even on EPA's decision to regulate as nonhazardous. 
Coal ash is dangerous, and if it ends up in drinking water, 
groundwater, or air, it is toxic. That is why EPA's rule is so 
important and why this bill is so dangerous.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to my colleague from 
Florida, let me respond.
  I am just trying to figure out whether the other side believes it is 
toxic or not toxic and if they trust the EPA or don't trust the EPA, 
because the EPA has ruled twice--in 1993 and 2000--that it was toxic. 
Then they roll out the final rule, which the other side is defending, 
and they say it is not toxic. The other side's debating point is really 
why we need the bill, because uncertainty is being created with the 
recyclable and reuse people.
  What was just talked about should cause everyone who is in the 
recyclable and reuse industry to say, ``We were right; we need this 
bill'' because the EPA, in 1993 and 2000, and the final rule. That is 
one part of the reason why we need the bill is to close that loophole 
because, yes, it is kind of ironic for me to be supporting the EPA, but 
the EPA has said it is not toxic.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support H.R. 1734, the 
Improving Coal Combustion Residuals Regulation Act. This commonsense 
legislation will ensure that coal combustion products are safely 
regulated by empowering the States to regulate it at fixed standards 
without overwhelming consumers' wallets. It also gives the EPA the 
authority to act to protect the public should a State fail to implement 
its own regulations.

                              {time}  1645

  Coal combustion products have become a significant sector of the 
economy, providing jobs and environmental and safety benefits. The 
recycling of coal combustion products reduces greenhouse gas emissions, 
extends the life and durability of the Nation's roads and bridges, and 
reduces the amount that must be disposed of in landfills or surface 
impoundments.
  If EPA reverses its decision not to regulate coal ash as a hazardous 
material, as they are considering, the cost to Floridians could be 
astronomical because Florida law does not permit hazardous waste 
landfills. Utilities would then be forced to export the ash to 
neighboring States, the result of which would be higher out-of-pocket 
energy costs for my constituents. We can't have that.
  Overregulating the recycling of coal combustible products will only 
serve to hurt the environment and increase the costs to consumers. 
These are things we should be avoiding, not promoting.

[[Page H5363]]

  This legislation will protect jobs and provide certainty to States, 
utilities, and businesses that recycle coal combustible products.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In response to the chairman of the subcommittee, I just want to 
stress again that I don't think that you should rely on EPA's decision 
to regulate as nonhazardous, meaning that coal ash is considered 
nontoxic.
  The fact of the matter is that the EPA has never said that it is not 
a toxic material, and they continue to say that it is dangerous. If it 
ends up in drinking water, groundwater, or air, it is toxic.
  That is why I will take the time now, Mr. Chairman, to read from the 
SAP, or the Statement of Administration Policy, from the Executive 
Office of the President. Their main concern in issuing this Statement 
of Administration Policy is the impact on public health and the 
environment.
  I just would like to read it. It says: ``The Administration strongly 
opposes H.R. 1734, because it would undermine the protection of public 
health and the environment provided by the Environmental Protection 
Agency's (EPA's) December 2014 final rule addressing the risks posed by 
mismanaged impoundments of coal ash and other coal combustion residuals 
(CCR). The 2008 failure of a coal ash impoundment in Kingston, 
Tennessee, and the 2014 coal ash spill into the Dan River in Eden, 
North Carolina, serve as stark reminders of the need for safe disposal 
and management of coal ash.
  ``EPA's rule articulates clear and consistent national standards to 
protect public health and the environment, prevent contamination of 
drinking water, and minimize the risk of catastrophic failure at coal 
ash surface impoundments. H.R. 1734 would, however, substantially 
weaken these protections. For example, the bill would eliminate 
restrictions on how close coal ash impoundments can be to drinking 
water sources. It would also undermine EPA's requirement that unlined 
impoundments must close or be retrofitted with protective liners if 
they are leaking and contaminating drinking water. Further, the bill 
would delay requirements in EPA's final CCR rule, including structural 
integrity and closure requirements, for which tailored extensions are 
already available through EPA's rule and through approved Solid Waste 
Management Plans.
  ``While the Administration supports appropriate State program 
flexibility, H.R. 1734 would allow States to modify or waive critical 
protective requirements found in EPA's final CCR rule. Specifically, 
H.R. 1734 authorizes States to implement permit programs that would not 
meet a national minimum standard of protection and fails to provide EPA 
with an opportunity to review and approve State permit programs prior 
to implementation, departing from the long-standing precedent of 
previously enacted Federal environmental statutes.
  ``Because it would undercut important national programs provided by 
EPA's 2014 CCR management and disposal rule, the Administration 
strongly opposes H.R. 1734. If the President were presented with H.R. 
1734''--as before the House today--``his senior advisers would 
recommend that he veto the bill.''
  That is the end of the SAP. The administration's opposition is 
primarily based on the concerns over public health and the environment 
that would undermine their rules.
  Again, I think it is quite clear that the President, the White House, 
and the EPA are very concerned that this legislation would make it very 
possible for coal ash and toxic residue to get into the environment, 
whether it is through drinking water, air, groundwater, whatever. That 
is our primary concern, Mr. Chairman.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey has 7\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, what is coal ash and what risk does it pose? Basically, 
it is the waste from burning coal and power plants or industrial 
facilities; and it contains high concentrations of toxic chemicals, as 
I said, including arsenic, lead, and mercury.
  The unsafe disposal of coal ash presents serious risks to human 
health and the environment. Contaminants can leach into groundwater and 
drinking water supplies or become airborne as toxic dust. Aging or 
deficient coal ash impoundments can fail structurally, resulting in 
catastrophic floods of toxic sludge entering neighboring communities. 
Examples of these harms are numerous and well documented.
  The EPA addressed these risks and published a final rule governing 
coal ash disposal in the Federal Register in April after decades of 
work, a robust public process, and consideration of over 450,000 public 
comments.
  The rule sets out minimum national criteria for the disposal of coal 
ash carefully designed to ensure that no reasonable probability of 
adverse effects occur on the health or the environment, and the rule 
explicitly protects beneficial reuse or recycling of coal ash.
  The GOP is saying that their bill, H.R. 1734, would merely codify 
EPA's rule; but that is simply not true. This bill would endanger human 
health and the environment by eliminating or changing crucial 
requirements in EPA's rule.
  Some examples of protective requirements in the rule that would be 
eliminated by the bill are liner requirements for existing surface 
impoundments, closure requirements for deficient structures, location 
restrictions, groundwater protection standards, cleanup requirements, 
and transparency.
  The bill undermines transparency requirements in EPA's rule, 
including specific requirements to make information publicly available 
online; and it introduces new exceptions to publication requirements.
  Clearly, this bill would delay important health protections. The EPA 
rule requires coal ash disposal sites to quickly come into compliance 
with the rules requirements, with many requirements effective 
this October.

  This bill establishes much longer timeframes for some requirements, 
with full compliance not required until 6 or 7 years after enactment. 
Even where the timeframes in the bill are close to those in the rule, 
they would be counted from the bill's date of enactment, leading to 
significant delays, compared to the rule.
  There is no need for this legislation, Mr. Chairman. In the past, 
some argued that legislation was needed to prevent EPA from regulating 
coal ash as hazardous waste and to protect beneficial reuse, but EPA's 
final rule regulates coal ash as nonhazardous and specifically protects 
the beneficial reuse.
  Some have also suggested that legislation is needed to prevent dual 
enforcement of State and Federal requirements, but the final rule 
includes a mechanism for EPA approval of State requirements 
specifically to address this concern.
  Who opposes H.R. 1734? Well, again, the administration--I read the 
SAP--environment, public health and civil rights groups, Sierra Club, 
and NAACP; the list goes on. In North Carolina, where a recent spill 
devastated the Dan River, 25 State legislators have signed a letter of 
opposition to this legislation.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, if you care about human health, if you care 
about the environment, if you want to make sure that coal ash disposal 
is not going to contaminate your groundwater, your air, or your 
drinking water, you should vehemently oppose this legislation.
  I urge all of my colleagues to do so, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, a couple of things--first of all, drinking battery acid 
is toxic. Batteries are thrown into municipal solid waste landfills. 
States comply with Federal standards and enforce the protection of 
their citizens. That is all we are asking here.
  I am glad you read the Statement of Administration Policy. I have a 
letter from ECOS and ASTSWMO. ECOS is the Environmental Council of the 
States. It represents all 50 States. ASTSWMO represents the Association

[[Page H5364]]

of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials.
  Every local government official that manages waste in this country 
and our territories supports this bill. They must think that there is a 
reason. I have got to believe that these local States are concerned 
about protecting their citizens. Otherwise, they wouldn't be elected.
  California is an ECOS. Washington State is an ECOS. In fact, the next 
letter we have is from the Western Governors' Association, and it was 
unanimous to support this bill. Our friend, the Governor of Washington 
State, used to be on the committee. No one would say he is going to 
threaten and endanger his citizens.
  The States can do this. They have State EPAs. Let's have a 
certificate program using Federal statutory guidelines so that we know 
the rules of the road. That is really all we are doing.
  H.R. 1734 is the best solution for everyone. It is a solution for the 
EPA because their protective technical requirements for coal ash will 
be implemented through enforceable permits, and they will have a far 
more significant oversight role for coal ash than they would have under 
the rule.
  It is a solution for the States because they will be able to 
immediately develop permit programs and know exactly what the permit 
programs must contain.
  It is a solution for the regulated community because they will have 
the benefit of enforceable permits and regulatory oversight to help 
them interpret and implement the requirements.
  It is a solution for the beneficial users because they will have the 
certainty that coal ash will continue to be regulated as a nonhazardous 
waste.
  Finally, I would like to thank Mr. McKinley for his longstanding 
leadership on this issue as we continue the process of trying to figure 
out how to effectively regulate coal ash.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this bipartisan solution to 
effectively and affirmatively regulate coal ash, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Chair, today, I rise to discuss my 
opposition to H.R 1734, Improving Coal Combustion Residuals Regulation 
Act of 2015. H.R. 1734 is an attack on the EPA's recently finalized 
minimum disposal standards for toxic coal ash and a threat to safety, 
health, and the environment.
  Low-income communities bear an unbalanced share of the health risks 
from disposal of coal combustion waste, as with so many environmental 
issues. Almost 70 percent of coal ash impoundments are located in 
communities of color or low income communities.
  Coal ash disposal sites directly impact the health, livelihood, and 
home values for the already poor and vulnerable communities living 
around these dump sites. More than 200 coal ash sites have already 
contaminated water in 37 states.
  Supporting this act gives a cold shoulder to American families 
suffering from toxic coal ash-related health issues. It tells those 
families that Congress does not care about their health and 
environmental issues.
  This bill will delay many of the EPA's coal ash rule's new health and 
safety protections, weaken the rule's mandate to close inactive ponds 
by extending the deadline for closure, eliminate the rule's guarantee 
of public access to information and public participation, and eliminate 
the rule's ban on storing and dumping coal ash in drinking water. The 
bill will also remove the national minimum standard for protection and 
cleanup of coal ash-contaminated sites, remove the rule's national 
standard for drinking water protection and cleanup of ash-contaminated 
sites, prohibit effective federal oversight of state programs, and 
prohibit EPA enforcement of state program requirements unless invited 
by a state.
  This is why I am in support of the Butterfield/Rush/Clarke/Price/
Adams Amendment, which attempts to improve this bill by allowing the 
Administrator of the EPA to prevent the underlying legislation from 
going into effect if it is determined to have a negative impact on 
vulnerable populations.
  In summary, I oppose H.R. 1734 because it places the health of 
communities and environment in great danger and fails to guarantee 
consistent nationwide protection. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
protecting the American people by opposing this bill.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 1734, 
the Improving Coal Combustion Residuals Regulation Act.
  The Energy and Commerce Committee has looked at the issue of coal ash 
for the past several Congresses. I have and continue to advocate for 
coal ash to be regulated under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation 
and Recovery Act (RCRA), which would ensure that the recycling of coal 
ash continues without disruption.
  The beneficial reuse of coal ash is responsible for tens of thousands 
of jobs around the country--helping our economy and our environment.
  I appreciate EPA's decision to regulate coal ash as a non-hazardous 
waste in its April final rule. However, I do have concerns with the 
other parts of EPA's new regulations. In particular, the rule is self-
implementing, meaning that it does not require permits to be issued and 
the federal government will have no authority to enforce EPA's 
standards.
  The best way forward is to create a state-based permitting program 
with minimum federal standards. This legislation does just that, taking 
many of EPA's requirements and folding them into state permitting 
programs. The program created by this bill would give states the 
flexibility to meet their unique conditions and empower state agencies 
to enforce environmental and safety requirements that will protect 
communities and the environment.
  EPA will be authorized to step-in for states that do not create their 
own programs.
  This chamber passed coal ash legislation with bipartisan support in 
2011 and 2013. The legislation before us today is an improvement on 
those bills and provides stronger protections for human health and the 
environment.
  Mr. Chair, I ask for colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come 
together and vote in support of this commonsense, bipartisan 
legislation.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chair, I rise today to again voice my strong support 
for H.R. 1734, the Improving Coal Combustion Residuals Regulation Act. 
We have been down this road before, and it has been bipartisan every 
step of the way. Versions of this legislation already passed the House 
on a number of occasions, and I believe that each Congress our 
thoughtful solution got better as we work to protect jobs, public 
health, and the environment. We worked closely with states as well as 
the administration, and we have a balanced solution before us today.
  This legislation incorporates the EPA's final coal ash rule that was 
announced in December and eliminates the challenges to its 
implementation. It sets up a state-based regulatory program to ensure 
the safe management and disposal of coal ash.
  States like my home state of Michigan have been, and will always be, 
better suited to implement rules and regulations because they 
understand local conditions. Folks who are on the ground are always 
better able to assess and handle a situation than bureaucrats in 
Washington.
  We have received letters in support of this bipartisan bill from 
state legislators, governors, and laborers--the list goes on. The 
Western Governors Association wrote that they ``support congressional 
efforts to address problematic confusion'' created by EPA's final coal 
ash rule. They point out that the rule produces an unintended 
consequence by creating a dual federal and state regulatory system.
  Why? Because EPA lacks authority to delegate the coal ash program to 
states in lieu of a federal program. Their letter also notes that EPA's 
rule ``does not require facilities to obtain permits, does not require 
states to adopt and implement new rules, and cannot be enforced by 
EPA.''
  This bill is not about the fracas over burning coal. It's about who's 
on the Clean-up Committee. It's about who has the expertise and 
responsibility for protecting a state's natural resources and the 
health of a state's residents.
  And it's not just Western Governors who understand this principle. 
The Environmental Council of the States, the nonpartisan association of 
state and territorial environmental agency leaders, has lent their 
strong voices to this effort, unanimously writing is support of H.R. 
1734. This isn't just environmental chiefs from states with coal, or 
states with governors from the same party. It's all ECOS member states.
  We have a thoughtful solution before us today, and I want to 
recognize the bill's author, Mr. McKinley, and the subcommittee 
chairman, Mr. Shimkus, for their hard work. We have been at this for 
years and have struck the sweet spot. I urge all Members to vote 
``yes'' on final passage and to vote with the gentlemen from Illinois 
on any amendments. I yield back.

[[Page H5365]]

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1734, the 
majority's haphazard effort to delay and weaken regulation of coal 
combustion residuals--better known as coal ash.
  Every year our coal plants consume nearly 800 million tons of coal. 
That consumption produces nearly 100 million tons of coal ash loaded 
with mercury, cadmium, arsenic, and heavy metals. These toxic compounds 
have led even conservative towns like Conway, South Carolina--where 
President Obama lost by 28 points to Governor Romney in 2014--to vote 
for coal ash removal.
  The Environmental Protection Agency's Coal Combustion Residual (CCR) 
Rule, issued on December 19, 2014, seeks to remedy the problem that 
many communities have with coal ash. It prohibits storage in dangerous 
areas, like along fault lines and too close to the water table. It 
creates strong liner requirements to prevent leaching of toxic 
compounds. It requires groundwater testing of areas immediately next to 
coal ash storage sites. It requires companies to clean up their mess 
when their coal ash leaches out or spills into waterways. It requires 
disclosure and public notice of testing results and spillages.
  H.R. 1734 would weaken most of these strong standards in favor state-
run permitting programs. And those programs that would take years to 
create and would then require fewer protections for the public.
  But the watered down standards are merely the surface problem with 
H.R. 1734--the fatal flaw is in how H.R. 1734 would delay and undercut 
any effort to enforce coal ash regulations.
  Under current law, private citizens may bring lawsuits to enforce the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA). Since EPA 
promulgated the Coal Ash Regulation under RCRA, that means that the 
same people who care most about coal ash--those whose air and water are 
threatened--may sue to enforce EPA's Coal Ash provisions. H.R. 1734 
changes that, creating a permitting program that could delay suits for 
more than five years.
  Still, the Chairman of one Energy and Commerce Subcommittee describes 
H.R. 1734 as a win for coal ash accountability, because it ``breathes 
real-life enforcement authority into the standards.''
  Nothing could be further from the truth.
  North Carolina--ground zero in the fight against coal ash--provides a 
crystal clear example of the crony capitalist regulation and corrupt 
enforcement that H.R. 1734 would enshrine in law.
  On February 2, 2014, Duke Energy spilled nearly 40,000 tons of coal 
ash into the Dan River. The spill by itself was a disaster. But it also 
called attention to a decades-old problem--coal ash leaching in less 
dramatic ways into North Carolina's waterways.
  Newly-aware North Carolinians were furious and demanded action. 
Raleigh, NC-based Public Policy Polling found that 93% of North 
Carolinians wanted the state to force Duke Energy to clean up the Dan 
River; 83% favored forcing Duke Energy to clean up all their coal ash 
sites.
  But that was not what happened. North Carolina met Duke Energy's Dan 
River spill not with enforcement, but with what looks a lot like 
``constituent services.'' A three-decade Duke Energy employee occupied 
the North Carolina governor's mansion. North Carolina's environmental 
regulator delayed the enforcement proceedings--as they have done with 
other leaching-based contaminations--to the benefit of Duke Energy. 
When they finally assessed a fine--they hit Duke Energy with just $25 
million against a company who made $3 billion that year. But that 
agreement also had no requirement that Duke Energy clean up their 
spill--directly contradicting the wishes of 93% of North Carolinians.
  H.R. 1734 tells us to trust in state enforcement. But as we have 
already seen, it is far too easy for corrupt utilities to capture state 
regulators. H.R. 1734 repeals the EPA rule for one reason--it would 
work. And unlike coal ash leaching into our drinking waters, that is 
not something that unscrupulous special interest groups are going to 
tolerate.
  I urge my colleagues to end the farce that H.R. 1734 represents; pull 
it from the floor like they did with the House Interior and Environment 
Appropriations; and figure out how they can help our communities 
instead of poison them.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1734

       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 ``Improving 
     Coal Combustion Residuals Regulation Act of 2015''.
       (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 in accordance with 
     this section.
       ``(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 24 months after the date 
     of enactment of this section (except as provided in 
     subparagraph (B) and 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) Extension.--
       ``(i) Requirements.--The Administrator may extend the 
     deadline for submission of a certification for a State under 
     subparagraph (A) for a period of 12 months if the State 
     submits to the Administrator a request for such an extension 
     that--

       ``(I) describes the efforts of the State to meet such 
     deadline;
       ``(II) demonstrates that the legislative or rulemaking 
     procedures of such State render the State unable meet such 
     deadline; and
       ``(III) provides the Administrator with a detailed schedule 
     for completion and submission of the certification.

       ``(ii) Determination.--If the Administrator does not 
     approve or deny a request submitted under clause (i) by the 
     date that is 30 days after such submission, the request shall 
     be deemed approved.
       ``(C) 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--

       ``(I) a description of the State's--

       ``(aa) process to inspect or otherwise determine compliance 
     with such permit program;
       ``(bb) process to enforce the requirements of such permit 
     program;
       ``(cc) public participation process for the promulgation, 
     amendment, or repeal of regulations for, and the issuance of 
     permits under, such permit program; and
       ``(dd) statutes, regulations, or policies pertaining to 
     public access to information, including information on 
     groundwater monitoring data, structural stability 
     assessments, emergency action plans, fugitive dust control 
     plans, notifications of closure (including any certification 
     of closure by a qualified professional engineer), and 
     corrective action remedies; and

       ``(II) identification of any changes to the definitions 
     under section 257.53 of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, for purposes of the State coal combustion 
     residuals permit program, including a reasonable basis for 
     such changes, as required under subsection (l)(5);

       ``(iv) a statement 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);
       ``(v) copies of State statutes and regulations described in 
     clause (iv);
       ``(vi) a plan for a response by the State to a release at a 
     structure or inactive surface impoundment that has the 
     potential for impact beyond the site on which the structure 
     or inactive surface impoundment is located; and
       ``(vii) a plan for coordination among States in the event 
     of a release that crosses State lines.
       ``(D) 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 section (including pursuant to subsection (f)), 
     the lead 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.

[[Page H5366]]

       ``(c) Requirements for a Coal Combustion Residuals Permit 
     Program.--A coal combustion residuals permit program shall 
     consist of the following:
       ``(1) General requirements.--
       ``(A) Permits.--The implementing agency shall require that 
     owners or operators of structures apply for and obtain 
     permits incorporating the applicable requirements of the coal 
     combustion residuals permit program.
       ``(B) 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 publicly 
     available for review and comment under the public 
     participation process of the coal combustion residuals permit 
     program;
       ``(ii) final determinations on permit applications are made 
     publicly available;
       ``(iii) information on groundwater monitoring data, 
     structural stability assessments, emergency action plans, 
     fugitive dust control plans, notifications of closure 
     (including any certification of closure by a qualified 
     professional engineer), and corrective action remedies 
     required pursuant to paragraph (2), collected in a manner 
     determined appropriate by the implementing agency, is 
     publicly available, including on an Internet website; and
       ``(iv) information regarding the exercise by the 
     implementing agency of any discretionary authority granted 
     under this section and not provided for in the rule described 
     in subsection (l)(1) is made publicly available.
       ``(C) Agency authority.--
       ``(i) In general.--The implementing agency shall--

       ``(I) obtain information necessary to determine whether the 
     owner or operator of a structure is in compliance with the 
     requirements of the coal combustion residuals permit program;
       ``(II) conduct or require monitoring or testing to ensure 
     that structures are in compliance with the requirements of 
     the coal combustion residuals permit program; and
       ``(III) enter any site or premise at which a structure or 
     inactive coal combustion residuals surface impoundment is 
     located for the purpose of inspecting such structure or 
     surface impoundment and reviewing relevant records.

       ``(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) Criteria.--The implementing agency shall apply the 
     following criteria with respect to structures:
       ``(A) Design requirements.--For new structures, including 
     lateral expansions of existing structures, the criteria 
     regarding design requirements described in sections 257.70 
     and 257.72 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, as 
     applicable.
       ``(B) Groundwater monitoring and corrective action.--
       ``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), for 
     all structures, the criteria regarding groundwater monitoring 
     and corrective action requirements described in sections 
     257.90 through 257.98 of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, including--

       ``(I) for the purposes of detection monitoring, the 
     constituents described in appendix III to part 257 of title 
     40, Code of Federal Regulations; and
       ``(II) for the purposes of assessment monitoring, 
     establishing a groundwater protection standard, and 
     assessment of corrective measures, the constituents described 
     in appendix IV to part 257 of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.

       ``(ii) Exceptions and additional authority.--

       ``(I) Alternative point of compliance.--Notwithstanding 
     section 257.91(a)(2) of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, the implementing agency may establish the 
     relevant point of compliance for the down-gradient monitoring 
     system as provided in section 258.51(a)(2) of title 40, Code 
     of Federal Regulations.
       ``(II) Alternative groundwater protection standards.--
     Notwithstanding section 257.95(h) of title 40, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, the implementing agency may establish an 
     alternative groundwater protection standard as provided in 
     section 258.55(i) of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations.
       ``(III) Ability to determine that corrective action is not 
     necessary or technically feasible.--Notwithstanding section 
     257.97 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, the 
     implementing agency may determine that remediation of a 
     release from a structure is not necessary as provided in 
     section 258.57(e) of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations.
       ``(IV) Authority relating to releases, other than releases 
     to groundwater.--Notwithstanding sections 257.90(d) and 
     257.96(a) of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, the 
     implementing agency may, with respect to a release from a 
     structure, other than a release to groundwater, authorize, 
     for purposes of complying with this section, remediation of 
     such release in accordance with other applicable Federal or 
     State requirements if compliance with such requirements will 
     result in the same level of protection as compliance with the 
     criteria described in sections 257.96 through 257.98 of title 
     40, Code of Federal Regulations, taking into consideration 
     the nature of the release.
       ``(V) General authority relating to groundwater monitoring 
     and corrective action.--Notwithstanding sections 257.90 
     through 257.98 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, the 
     implementing agency may authorize alternative groundwater 
     monitoring and corrective action requirements provided that 
     such requirements are no less stringent than the alternative 
     requirements authorized to be established under subpart E of 
     part 258 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations.
       ``(VI) Opportunity for corrective action for unlined 
     surface impoundments.--Notwithstanding section 257.101(a)(1) 
     of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, the implementing 
     agency may allow the owner or operator of an existing 
     structure that is an unlined surface impoundment--

       ``(aa) to continue to operate, pursuant to sections 257.96 
     through 257.98 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, 
     until the date that is 102 months after the date of enactment 
     of this section; and
       ``(bb) to continue to operate after such date as long as 
     such unlined surface impoundment meets the groundwater 
     protection standard established pursuant to this subparagraph 
     and any other applicable requirement established pursuant to 
     this section.
       ``(C) Closure.--For all structures, the criteria for 
     closure described in sections 257.101, 257.102, and 257.103 
     of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, except--
       ``(i) the criteria described in section 257.101(a)(1) of 
     title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, shall apply to an 
     existing structure that is an unlined surface impoundment 
     only if--

       ``(I) the unlined surface impoundment is not allowed to 
     continue operation pursuant to subparagraph (B)(ii)(VI)(aa); 
     or
       ``(II) in the case of an unlined surface impoundment that 
     is allowed to continue operation pursuant to subparagraph 
     (B)(ii)(VI)(aa), the date described in such subparagraph has 
     passed and the unlined surface impoundment does not meet the 
     requirements described in subparagraph (B)(ii)(VI)(bb);

       ``(ii) the criteria described in section 257.101(b)(1) of 
     title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, shall not apply to 
     existing structures, except as provided in subparagraphs 
     (E)(i)(II) and (E)(ii); and
       ``(iii) if an implementing agency has set a deadline under 
     clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph (L), the criteria 
     described in section 257.101(b)(2) of title 40, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, shall apply to structures that are 
     surface impoundments only after such deadline.
       ``(D) Post-closure.--For all structures, the criteria for 
     post-closure care described in section 257.104 of title 40, 
     Code of Federal Regulations.
       ``(E) Location restrictions.--
       ``(i) In general.--The criteria for location restrictions 
     described in--

       ``(I) for new structures, including lateral expansions of 
     existing structures, sections 257.60 through 257.64 and 
     257.3091 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations; 
     and
       ``(II) for existing structures, sections 257.64 and 
     257.3091 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations.

       ``(ii) Additional authority.--The implementing agency may 
     apply the criteria described in sections 257.60 through 
     257.63 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, to existing 
     structures that are surface impoundments.
       ``(F) Air criteria.--For all structures, the criteria for 
     air quality described in section 257.80 of title 40, Code of 
     Federal Regulations.
       ``(G) Financial assurance.--For all structures, the 
     criteria for financial assurance described in subpart G of 
     part 258 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations.
       ``(H) Surface water.--For all structures, the criteria for 
     surface water described in section 257.3093 of title 
     40, Code of Federal Regulations.
       ``(I) Recordkeeping.--For all structures, the criteria for 
     recordkeeping described in section 257.105 of title 40, Code 
     of Federal Regulations.
       ``(J) Run-on and run-off controls.--For all structures that 
     are landfills, sand or gravel pits, or quarries, the criteria 
     for run-on and run-off control described in section 257.81 of 
     title 40, Code of Federal Regulations.
       ``(K) Hydrologic and hydraulic capacity requirements.--For 
     all structures that are surface impoundments, the criteria 
     for inflow design flood control systems described in section 
     257.82 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations.
       ``(L) Structural integrity.--For structures that are 
     surface impoundments, the criteria for structural integrity 
     described in sections 257.73 and 257.74 of title 40, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, except that, notwithstanding section 
     257.73(f)(4) of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, the 
     implementing agency may provide for--
       ``(i) up to 30 days for an owner or operator to complete a 
     safety factor assessment when an owner or operator has failed 
     to meet an

[[Page H5367]]

     applicable periodic assessment deadline provided in section 
     257.73(f) of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations; and
       ``(ii) up to 12 months for an owner or operator to meet the 
     safety factor assessment criteria provided in section 
     257.73(e)(1) of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, if the 
     implementing agency determines, through the initial safety 
     factor assessment, that the structure does not meet such 
     safety factor assessment criteria and that the structure does 
     not pose an immediate threat of release.
       ``(M) Inspections.--For all structures, the criteria 
     described in sections 257.83 and 257.84 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 18 months after the Administrator receives notice 
     under subsection (e)(1)(A), or not later than 24 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 
     existing structures of--
       ``(i) the obligation to apply for and obtain a permit under 
     subparagraph (C); and
       ``(ii) the requirements referred to in subparagraph 
     (B)(ii).
       ``(B) Compliance with certain requirements.--
       ``(i) Initial deadline for certain requirements.--Not later 
     than 8 months after the date of enactment of this section, 
     the implementing agency shall require owners or operators of 
     existing structures to comply with--

       ``(I) the requirements under paragraphs (2)(F), (2)(H), 
     (2)(I), and (2)(M); and
       ``(II) the requirement for a permanent identification 
     marker under the criteria described in paragraph (2)(L).

       ``(ii) Subsequent deadline for certain other 
     requirements.--Not later than 12 months after 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 require 
     owners or operators of existing structures to comply with--

       ``(I) the requirements under paragraphs (2)(B), (2)(G), 
     (2)(J), (2)(K), and (2)(L); and
       ``(II) the requirement for a written closure plan under the 
     criteria described in paragraph (2)(C).

       ``(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 66 months after the 
     Administrator receives notice under subsection (e)(1)(A), or 
     not later than 72 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 an existing structure, a final 
     permit incorporating the applicable requirements of the coal 
     combustion residuals permit program, or a final denial of an 
     application submitted requesting such a permit.
       ``(ii) Application deadline.--The implementing agency shall 
     identify, in collaboration with the owner or operator of an 
     existing structure, a reasonable deadline by which the owner 
     or operator shall submit a permit application under clause 
     (i).
       ``(D) Interim operation.--
       ``(i) Prior to deadlines.--Unless the implementing agency 
     determines that the structure should close in accordance with 
     the criteria described in paragraph (2)(C), 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 an existing structure may 
     continue to operate such structure until such applicable 
     deadline under any applicable regulations in effect during 
     such period.
       ``(ii) Prior to permit.--Unless the implementing agency 
     determines that the structure should close in accordance with 
     the criteria described in paragraph (2)(C), if the owner or 
     operator of an existing structure 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 of an application submitted requesting such 
     a permit.
       ``(4) Requirements for inactive coal combustion residuals 
     surface impoundments.--
       ``(A) Notice.--Not later than 2 months after the date of 
     enactment of this section, each owner or operator of an 
     inactive coal combustion residuals surface impoundment shall 
     submit to the Administrator and the State in which such 
     inactive coal combustion residuals surface impoundment is 
     located a notice stating whether such inactive coal 
     combustion residuals surface impoundment will--
       ``(i) not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of 
     this section, complete closure in accordance with section 
     257.100 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations; or
       ``(ii) comply with the requirements of the coal combustion 
     residuals permit program applicable to existing structures 
     that are surface impoundments (except as provided in 
     subparagraph (D)(ii)).
       ``(B) Extension.--In the case of an inactive coal 
     combustion residuals surface impoundment for which the owner 
     or operator submits a notice described in subparagraph 
     (A)(i), the implementing agency may extend the closure 
     deadline provided in such subparagraph by a period of not 
     more than 2 years if the owner or operator of such inactive 
     coal combustion residuals surface impoundment--
       ``(i) demonstrates to the satisfaction of the implementing 
     agency that it is not feasible to complete closure of the 
     inactive coal combustion residuals surface impoundment in 
     accordance with section 257.100 of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, by the deadline provided in subparagraph 
     (A)(i)--

       ``(I) because of complications stemming from the climate or 
     weather, such as unusual amounts of precipitation or a 
     significantly shortened construction season;
       ``(II) because additional time is required to remove the 
     liquid from the inactive coal combustion residuals surface 
     impoundment due to the volume of coal combustion residuals 
     contained in the surface impoundment or the characteristics 
     of the coal combustion residuals in such surface impoundment;
       ``(III) because the geology and terrain surrounding the 
     inactive coal combustion residuals surface impoundment will 
     affect the amount of material needed to close the inactive 
     coal combustion residuals surface impoundment; or
       ``(IV) because additional time is required to coordinate 
     with and obtain necessary approvals and permits; and

       ``(ii) demonstrates to the satisfaction of the implementing 
     agency that the inactive coal combustion residuals surface 
     impoundment does not pose an immediate threat of release.
       ``(C) Financial assurance.--The implementing agency shall 
     require the owner or operator of an inactive surface 
     impoundment that has closed pursuant to this paragraph to 
     perform post-closure care in accordance with the criteria 
     described in section 257.104(b)(1) of title 40, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, and to provide financial assurance for 
     such post-closure care in accordance with the criteria 
     described in section 258.72 of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.
       ``(D) Treatment as structure.--
       ``(i) In general.--An inactive coal combustion residuals 
     surface impoundment shall be treated as an existing structure 
     that is a surface impoundment for the purposes of this 
     section, including with respect to the requirements of 
     paragraphs (1) and (2), if--

       ``(I) the owner or operator does not submit a notice in 
     accordance with subparagraph (A); or
       ``(II) the owner or operator submits a notice described in 
     subparagraph (A)(ii).

       ``(ii) Inactive coal combustion residuals surface 
     impoundments that fail to close.--An inactive coal combustion 
     residuals surface impoundment for which the owner or operator 
     submits a notice described in subparagraph (A)(i) that does 
     not close by the deadline provided under subparagraph (A)(i) 
     or subparagraph (B), as applicable--

       ``(I) shall be treated as an existing structure for 
     purposes of this section beginning on the date that is the 
     day after such applicable deadline, including by--

       ``(aa) being required to comply with the requirements of 
     paragraph (1), as applicable; and
       ``(bb) being required to comply, beginning on such date, 
     with each requirement of paragraph (2); but

       ``(II) shall not be required to comply with paragraph (3).

       ``(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 as 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 make the request only if the 
     Administrator does not possess the information necessary to 
     ascertain whether the State has

[[Page H5368]]

     satisfied the requirements described in subparagraphs (A) 
     through (E) of paragraph (1).
       ``(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) Considerations 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)(A);
       ``(ii) repeated issuance by the State of permits that 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 required under 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 under subsection (b)(2)(C)(iii)(I).
       ``(e) Implementation by Administrator.--
       ``(1) Federal backstop authority.--The Administrator shall 
     implement a coal combustion residuals permit program for a 
     State 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 pursuant to 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 and inactive coal 
     combustion residuals surface impoundments 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 and inactive coal 
     combustion residuals surface impoundments.
       ``(4) Requirements.--If the Administrator implements a coal 
     combustion residuals permit program 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, 
     structures, and inactive coal combustion residuals surface 
     impoundments 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, 
     structures, and inactive coal combustion residuals surface 
     impoundments 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 and inactive coal combustion 
     residuals surface impoundments 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 under 
     this subsection, the Administrator shall provide a 30-day 
     period for the public participation process required under 
     subsection (c)(1)(B)(i).
       ``(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 the Administrator provides for 
     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 to the State 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--

       ``(I) a determination, after the Administrator provides for 
     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 to the State 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.
       ``(g) Implementation During Transition.--
       ``(1) 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--
       ``(A) a State takes control of its coal combustion 
     residuals permit program from the Administrator under 
     subsection (f)(1); or
       ``(B) the Administrator takes control of a coal combustion 
     residuals permit program from a State under subsection (e).
       ``(2) Change in requirements.--Paragraph (1) shall apply to 
     such program requirements, actions, and orders until such 
     time as--
       ``(A) the implementing agency that took control of the coal 
     combustion residuals permit program changes the requirements 
     of the coal combustion residuals permit program with respect 
     to the basis for the action or order; or
       ``(B) with respect to an ongoing corrective action, the 
     State or the Administrator, whichever took the action or 
     issued the order, certifies the completion of the corrective 
     action that is the subject of the action or order.
       ``(3) Single permit program.--Except as otherwise provided 
     in this subsection--
       ``(A) if a State adopts and implements a coal combustion 
     residuals permit program under subsection (f), the 
     Administrator shall cease to implement the coal combustion 
     residuals permit program implemented under subsection (e) for 
     such State; and
       ``(B) if the Administrator implements a coal combustion 
     residuals permit program for a State under subsection (e)(1), 
     the State shall cease to implement its coal combustion 
     residuals permit program.
       ``(h) 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.
       ``(i) Authority.--
       ``(1) State authority.--Nothing in this section shall 
     preclude or deny any right of any State to adopt or enforce 
     any regulation or requirement respecting coal combustion 
     residuals that is more stringent or broader in scope than a 
     regulation or requirement under this section.
       ``(2) Authority of the administrator.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subsections (d), 
     (e), and (g) of this section and section 6005, the 
     Administrator shall,

[[Page H5369]]

     with respect to the regulation of coal combustion residuals 
     under this Act, 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 implementing agency, 
     the Administrator may provide to such State agency only the 
     enforcement assistance requested.
       ``(D) Concurrent enforcement.--Except as provided in 
     subparagraph (C) of this paragraph and subsection (g), 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).
       ``(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.
       ``(j) 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 or underground coal mining and reclamation 
     operations.
       ``(k)  Use of Coal Combustion Residuals.--Use of coal 
     combustion residuals in any of the following ways shall not 
     be considered to be receipt of coal combustion residuals for 
     the purposes of this section:
       ``(1) Use as--
       ``(A) engineered structural fill constructed in accordance 
     with--
       ``(i) ASTM E2277 entitled `Standard Guide for Design and 
     Construction of Coal Ash Structural Fills', including any 
     amendment or revision to that guidance;
       ``(ii) any other published national standard determined 
     appropriate by the implementing agency; or
       ``(iii) a State standard or program relating to--

       ``(I) fill operations for coal combustion residuals; or
       ``(II) the management of coal combustion residuals for 
     beneficial use; or

       ``(B) engineered structural fill for--
       ``(i) a building site or foundation;
       ``(ii) a base or embankment for a bridge, roadway, runway, 
     or railroad; or
       ``(iii) a dike, levee, berm, or dam that is not part of a 
     structure.
       ``(2) Storage in a manner that is consistent with the 
     management of raw materials, if the coal combustion residuals 
     being stored are intended to be used in a product or as a raw 
     material.
       ``(3) Beneficial use--
       ``(A) that provides a functional benefit;
       ``(B) that is a substitute for the use of a virgin 
     material;
       ``(C) that meets relevant product specifications and 
     regulatory or design standards; and
       ``(D) if such use involves placement on the land of coal 
     combustion residuals in non-roadway applications, in an 
     amount equal to or greater than the amount described in the 
     definition of beneficial use in section 257.53 of title 40, 
     Code of Federal Regulations, for which the person using the 
     coal combustion residuals demonstrates, and keeps records 
     showing, that such use does not result in environmental 
     releases to groundwater, surface water, soil, or air that--
       ``(i) are greater than those from a material or product 
     that would be used instead of the coal combustion residuals; 
     or
       ``(ii) exceed relevant regulatory and health-based 
     benchmarks for human and ecological receptors.
       ``(l) Effect of Rule.--
       ``(1) In general.--With respect to the final rule entitled 
     `Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Disposal of 
     Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities' signed by 
     the Administrator on December 19, 2014--
       ``(A) such rule shall be implemented only through a coal 
     combustion residuals permit program under this section; and
       ``(B) to the extent that any provision or requirement of 
     such rule conflicts, or is inconsistent, with a provision or 
     requirement of this section, the provision or requirement of 
     this section shall control.
       ``(2) References to the code of federal regulations.--For 
     purposes of this section, any reference to a provision of the 
     Code of Federal Regulations added by the rule described in 
     paragraph (1) shall be considered to be a reference to such 
     provision as it is contained in such rule.
       ``(3) Effective date.--For purposes of this section, any 
     reference in part 257 of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, to the effective date contained in section 
     257.51 of such part shall be considered to be a reference to 
     the date of enactment of this section, except that, in the 
     case of any deadline established by such a reference that is 
     in conflict with a deadline established by this section, the 
     deadline established by this section shall control.
       ``(4) Applicability of other regulations.--The application 
     of section 257.52 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, 
     is not affected by this section.
       ``(5) Definitions.--The definitions under section 257.53 of 
     title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, shall apply with 
     respect to any criteria described in subsection (c) the 
     requirements of which are incorporated into a coal combustion 
     residuals permit program under this section, except--
       ``(A) as provided in paragraph (1); and
       ``(B) a lead State implementing agency may make changes to 
     such definitions if the lead State implementing agency--
       ``(i) identifies the changes in the explanation included 
     with the certification submitted under subsection 
     (b)(2)(C)(iii); and
       ``(ii) provides in such explanation a reasonable basis for 
     the changes.
       ``(6) Other criteria.--The criteria described in sections 
     257.106 and 257.107 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, 
     may be incorporated into a coal combustion residuals permit 
     program at the discretion of the implementing agency.
       ``(m) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Coal combustion residuals.--The term `coal combustion 
     residuals' means the following wastes generated by electric 
     utilities and independent power producers:
       ``(A) The solid wastes listed in section 3001(b)(3)(A)(i) 
     that are generated primarily from the combustion of coal, 
     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 that are generated 
     primarily from the combustion of coal.
       ``(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.
       ``(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 a 
     system of prior approval and conditions implemented under 
     this section to regulate the management and disposal of coal 
     combustion residuals.
       ``(3) Electric utility; independent power producer.--The 
     terms `electric utility' and `independent power producer' 
     include only electric utilities and independent power 
     producers that produce electricity on or after the date of 
     enactment of this section.
       ``(4) Existing structure.--The term `existing structure' 
     means a structure the construction of which commenced before 
     the date of enactment of this section.
       ``(5) Implementing agency.--The term `implementing agency' 
     means the agency responsible for implementing a coal 
     combustion residuals permit program, which shall either be 
     the lead State implementing agency identified under 
     subsection (b)(2)(C)(i) or the Administrator pursuant to 
     subsection (e).
       ``(6) Inactive coal combustion residuals surface 
     impoundment.--The term `inactive coal combustion residuals 
     surface impoundment' means a surface impoundment, located at 
     an electric utility or independent power producer, that, as 
     of the date of enactment of this section--
       ``(A) does not receive coal combustion residuals;
       ``(B) contains coal combustion residuals; and
       ``(C) contains liquid.
       ``(7) Structure.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the term `structure' means a landfill, surface impoundment, 
     sand or gravel pit, or quarry that receives coal combustion 
     residuals on or after the date of enactment of this section.
       ``(B) Exceptions.--
       ``(i) Municipal solid waste landfills.--The term 
     `structure' does not include a municipal solid waste 
     landfill.
       ``(ii) De minimis receipt.--The term `structure' does not 
     include any landfill or surface impoundment 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 landfill or surface impoundment.
       ``(8) Unlined surface impoundment.--The term `unlined 
     surface impoundment' means a surface impoundment that does 
     not have a liner system described in section 257.71 of title 
     40, Code of Federal Regulations.''.
       (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.).

[[Page H5370]]

     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 such term is 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 bill shall be in order except those 
printed in part C of House Report 114-216. Each such amendment may be 
offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated 
in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the 
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Shimkus

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part C of House Report 114-216.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. 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 7, line 13, strike ``subsection (l)(5)'' and insert 
     ``subsection (l)(4)''.
       Page 45, beginning on line 5, strike ``signed by the 
     Administrator on December 19, 2014'' and insert ``and 
     published in the Federal Register on April 17, 2015 (80 Fed. 
     Reg. 21302)''.
       Page 45, strike lines 15 through 20.
       Page 45, line 21, through page 47, line 5, redesignate 
     paragraphs (3) through (6) as paragraphs (2) through (5), 
     respectively.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 369, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment makes a technical and 
conforming change to the bill. Let me explain.
  The final rule amends part 257 of title 40 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations. EPA put out a prepublication version on the final rule on 
December 19, 2014, meaning that it was public, but had not yet been 
published in the Federal Register.
  H.R. 1734 directly incorporates the requirements in the EPA's final 
rule, and so there are numerous citations in the bill to the Code of 
Federal Regulations because, as of the date of our full committee 
markup, the final rule had not yet been published in the Federal 
Register and thus did not have a final citation in the Code of Federal 
Regulations.
  It was necessary to include in the bill a reference to the date of 
prepublication of the final rule and include a paragraph regarding 
references to the Code of Federal Regulations.
  The final rule was published in the Federal Register on April 17, 
2015; and as of that date, citations to the final rule were 
appropriately cited as citations to 40 CFR 257.
  My amendment simply removes the paragraph from the bill that was 
added as a placeholder until a final rule was published in the Federal 
Register.
  I urge all Members to support this amendment. I yield back the 
balance of my time.

                              {time}  1700

  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Pallone

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
part C of House Report 114-216.
  Mr. PALLONE. 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:

       Strike page 9, line 1, through page 10, line 4, and insert 
     the following:
       ``(B) Public availability of information.--The implementing 
     agency shall ensure compliance with sections 257.106 and 
     257.107 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations.
       Page 47, strike lines 1 through 5.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 369, the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
in support of my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is dangerous for human health and the 
environment, in part, because it deletes or undermines important 
protections in EPA's final coal ash rule. The deleted requirements 
include location restrictions, like a bar on disposing of coal ash 
directly in contact with natural aquifers. The undermined requirements 
include groundwater protection standards and monitoring requirements, 
which States would be able to change as they see fit. And all of the 
requirements, including design, maintenance, and operation 
requirements, would be delayed.
  My amendment, however, focuses on just one of these dangerous 
shortcomings, which I think is very important, and illustrates the 
fundamental issues with this bill. EPA's rule establishes a strong 
national floor for public disclosure of information. The rule specifies 
what information will be made available to the public and how it must 
be posted. Utilities will have to maintain pages on their Web sites 
that document their compliance with a wide range of criteria in the 
rule, including inspections and groundwater monitoring data.
  These requirements will inform and empower communities and hold 
utilities accountable. Concerned citizens won't have to navigate an 
array of State agencies and offices to find out if the coal ash 
impoundment in their neighborhood is contaminating groundwater. 
Instead, they will able to go directly to the utility Web site and see 
all monitoring results.
  Mr. Chairman, EPA testified before the Energy and Commerce Committee 
that these transparency requirements will be strong drivers of 
compliance, just as disclosure requirements have been under other 
environmental statutes. The Toxics Release Inventory is a great 
example. But this bill would eliminate these requirements.
  Under this bill, there would be no national requirement to maintain a 
public Web site and to post all of this important data. So my amendment 
would simply restore these important requirements in EPA's final rule.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to ask why this bill does away 
with this important compliance tool when its proponents suggest that 
the bill will improve compliance and enforcement. I think the answer is 
that this bill is not intended to increase compliance with the 
important standards EPA developed, but to allow the unsafe disposal of 
coal ash to continue. But it has already gone on for far too long.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to address one of the 
many shortcomings in the bill. I don't expect this amendment to pass, 
but I want to be clear that even if it does, the underlying bill will 
still be unnecessary and problematic. I will be urging a ``no'' vote 
when the question comes on final passage.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I rise to speak in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I share my colleague's concern for 
transparency, and I too want to make sure that the public has access to 
all relevant information. The State certification program would have 
State public access through the State EPA, and that is in this bill. So 
there is public access to information.
  H.R. 1734 accomplishes the goal by making sure the public has access 
to information and guaranteeing that the public will be involved with 
the decisionmaking process because it requires public participation in 
the permitting process, and it requires States to make available on the 
Internet such information as: all groundwater monitoring data, 
information regarding structural stability assessments, emergency 
action plans and emergency response plans, fugitive dust controls, 
certifications of closures, corrective action remedies, and all 
documents associated with the permitting process.
  I would like to point out that Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant 
Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response at 
EPA, indicated at our legislative hearing that States making the 
information available on the Internet was just as good as requiring 
owners and operators of disposal units putting it on their Web site.
  All that said, I understand my colleague's belief that the public 
would be

[[Page H5371]]

better served by having utilities create individual Web sites where the 
same information could be posted, and I offered to work with him to 
improve his amendment so that it would have accomplished his goal of 
having individual utility Web sites and removing references to 
confidential business information but would also have continued to 
ensure that States would make information available.
  I regret that we were unable to come to an agreement. I am willing to 
work with the gentleman on this issue as we move forward, and I regret 
that I have to urge a ``no'' vote on his amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PALLONE. 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 New Jersey will be 
postponed.


            Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Castor of Florida

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
part C of House Report 114-216.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. 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 14, strike lines 3 through 21.
       Page 14, line 22, through page 16, line 10, redesignate 
     subclauses (V) and (VI) as subclauses (IV) and (V), 
     respectively.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 369, the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Castor) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, my amendment requires the owners 
and operators of coal ash ponds to immediately clean up pollution from 
spills or disasters that involve their coal ash waste. The underlying 
bill inexplicably did not contain such a requirement.
  I know that is hard to believe, in the face of the horrendous coal 
ash disasters of the past 2 years, that my Republican colleagues did 
not include such a requirement. So my amendment reinstitutes the 
requirement for cleanup of these disasters.
  Now, the EPA rule requires an owner or operator of coal ash waste to 
respond immediately to a spill or release, whether it is through the 
air, water, or soil. The rule requires the polluter to alert both the 
local authorities and the public and to immediately prepare a cleanup 
plan. I mean, that is a fundamental concept of doing business, isn't 
it? Yet the Republican bill eliminates that requirement for owners and 
operators.
  They would no longer have to be responsible for their pollution or a 
disaster? That is a scary proposition after the Dan River Duke Energy 
spill in North Carolina that spilled over 39,000 tons of coal ash and 
140,000 tons of toxic wastewater, and after the TVA blowout that they 
say will cost over a billion dollars to remediate that community.
  Now, there are over 600 coal waste disposal impoundments across the 
Nation, and more than 100 million tons of coal waste are generated each 
year.
  In my home State of Florida, there are over 42 coal ash ponds at 8 
power plants, 27 of which are unlined, and 13 landfills, 6 of which are 
unlined. My local power provider alone has 11 coal ash ponds and one 
landfill. Over 6.1 million tons of coal ash are generated in Florida 
each year, yet Florida does not really regulate coal ash ponds, and 
that is similar to a lot of communities across the country.
  But we have learned the hard way that we need to have some basic 
standards to prevent these type of disasters. The EPA has identified 
170 coal ash ponds and landfills that have contaminated groundwater, 
surface water, or otherwise increased risks of harm to human health 
over the past years.
  These surface impoundments where coal ash is stored in ponds pose a 
threat, and even a threat to loss of life, if they fail. Coal ash ponds 
are located in 33 States, and 50 impoundments are currently considered 
high hazard, meaning that a failure would probably cause loss of human 
life.
  One such impoundment was at the TVA Kingston Fossil Plant, which 
burst on December 22, 2008, releasing 5.4 million cubic yards of coal 
ash to the Emory and Clinch Rivers and surrounding areas, creating a 
Superfund site that could cost about $1.2 billion, they estimate.
  The initial release of material created a wave of water and ash that 
destroyed three homes, disrupted electrical power, ruptured a natural 
gas line in the nearby neighborhood, covered railways and roadways, and 
necessitated the evacuation of a nearby neighborhood. This disaster 
forever changed the lives of farmers, ranchers, and families. More than 
1 billion gallons of waste washed down the valley like a wave, covering 
more than 300 acres. The volume of ash and water was nearly 100 times 
greater than the amount of oil spilled in the Exxon Valdez disaster. 
Thankfully, no serious injuries were reported since this occurred at 
night while people slept.
  And since 2008, we have had three major coal ash disasters, including 
the largest toxic waste spill in United States history.
  In addition to the TVA disaster, the Dan River plant spill in North 
Carolina was absolutely horrendous. February 2014, a pipe burst beneath 
an unlined coal ash impoundment, sending over 82,000 tons of coal ash 
slurry into the Dan River, spreading 70 miles downstream.
  The cost of cleaning up spills and leaking dumpsites has already 
snowballed, with six companies reporting liabilities that exceed $10 
billion. And we want to let them off the hook? I don't think so.
  We have got to correct this by adopting my amendment. Without Federal 
action to guide cleanup within a reasonable time, we are going to let 
folks off the hook, and that would not be fair. The chronic risks are 
significant. The risks to public and private property are significant. 
The risks to public health are too significant to ignore.
  So Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to adopt the Castor amendment. 
Vote ``yes'' to restore the rule's requirement to clean up releases of 
pollution caused by these coal ash impoundment ponds.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, although I do not 
oppose the amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Illinois is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I appreciate my colleague 
bringing up this amendment. I just wish she, as a member of the 
committee, I wish we would have seen this in the markup of the full 
committee and the committee because maybe we could have just inserted 
it into the bill instead of having it as an amendment on the floor. I 
understand the gentlewoman's passion. I just wish, through regular 
order, we probably could have disposed of this in the committee 
process.
  Having said that, the gentlewoman's amendment takes steps to more 
closely conform the bill to the EPA rule with respect to cleanup 
requirements, which is the entire intent of this bill. The intent of 
the bill is to codify the EPA rule, and so the gentlewoman's amendment 
helps us do that, and I appreciate that.
  I agree with the gentlewoman that it approves a protectiveness of 
State permit programs. Again, the key thing about H.R. 1734, it creates 
State permit programs so that the States have Federal standards and 
they have an enforceable permit program which they can enforce, just 
like we do on solid waste.
  I have no objection to the amendment. It is going to improve the 
bill, and I accept it on our side.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Connolly

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in 
part C of House Report 114-216.
  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 H5372]]


       Page 27, line 19, strike ``Financial assurance'' and insert 
     ``Post-closure care and financial assurance''.
       Page 27, line 24, strike ``section 257.104(b)(1)'' and 
     insert ``subsections (b) and (c) of section 257.104''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 369, 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 want to begin by thanking the majority 
for including my amendment offered to the coal ash bill considered in a 
previous Congress requiring States to have a strong and comprehensive 
emergency response plan in the unfortunate event of a spill or a leak.
  As I said then, and believe even more now, we simply cannot count on 
a private company to be prepared for a spill. The State and local 
governments, who will be the first responders, must also be active 
partners. By requiring States to be prepared with their own emergency 
response plans, I think we are taking a modest step to ensure they are 
prepared to protect the communities.
  Again, I acknowledge that and thank my colleagues.

                              {time}  1715

  It is in that same spirit of bipartisan, commonsense, and modest 
safeguards that I offer this amendment that would simply require that 
all inactive surface impoundments that begin closure procedures to put 
in place the same groundwater monitoring safeguards procedures required 
in the final Federal rule.
  When we debated similar legislation in July of 2013, I spoke of the 
devastating 2008 failure of the coal ash impoundment in Kingston, 
Tennessee.
  As a result of that breach, more than 5 million cubic yards of coal 
ash were released, covering more than 300 acres in toxic sludge, 
damaging and destroying homes and property, resulting in more than $1.2 
billion in cleanup costs.
  We must not forget the lasting health consequences as well, some of 
which are still unknown, resulting from that incident. Some residents 
will suffer from respiratory illnesses and other side effects.
  Arsenic levels, where the Kingston coal ash runoff was disposed of, 
were measured at 80 times higher than the amount allowed under the Safe 
Drinking Water Act, and the EPA already has said such exposure 
significantly increases the risk of cancer over time.
  What is even more troubling is these incidents continue to occur, 
most recently in my own home State of Virginia, where a neighboring 
North Carolina coal ash pond spilled more than 39,000 tons of toxic ash 
and 24 million gallons of wastewater into the Dan River.
  Though much of the public and media attention of this spill was 
focused on North Carolina's regulatory shortcomings, Virginians were 
also left exposed to the dangers of that coal ash spill. It is 
estimated that only 2,500 tons of ash were removed, leaving over 90 
percent of the coal ash in Virginia waters.
  As a result of this incident, Virginia's Department of Environmental 
Quality has proposed a $2.5 million settlement against Duke Energy 
Carolinas, probably only a fraction of the ultimate cost of cleanup.
  What has happened to communities in North Carolina, Tennessee, and 
Virginia can happen to any one of our communities that have or are near 
coal ash impoundment ponds.
  Today across the Commonwealth of Virginia, there are more than 30 
active and inactive ponds at 11 different sites, including one in my 
district, with an average of 47 years.
  As more of these facilities transition from coal-fired plants to gas-
fired and biomass and as we close down these surface impoundments, we 
need to make sure we are protecting our communities with proper 
postclosure procedures.
  One of the easiest protections our constituents can expect is that we 
maintain rigorous groundwater monitoring as these legacy ponds and 
inactive surface impoundments move toward postclosure status.
  However, I worry that, as this bill is written and, admittedly, as 
the EPA rule was finalized, regrettably, an unfortunate carve-out was 
made that threatens our communities.
  Why is it that a site that closes under the rule's guidelines must 
monitor groundwater for 30 years, but one that is rushed to meet the 3-
year deadline only has to monitor for a fraction of that same time? 
What could go wrong with that?
  Buried on pages 125 and 126 of the April 17, 2015, Federal Register, 
EPA notes that it ``received few public comments on the proposed 
activities to conduct during the post-closure care. These commenters 
were supportive of the activities and specifically urged the rule to 
require the monitoring of groundwater throughout the post-closure care 
period. The Agency received no comments opposing the proposed 
postclosure care activities.''
  I will remind my friends that more than 450,000 comments were 
provided on this rule.
  It isn't often we can all agree on something. But I think we can 
agree our neighbors have the right to expect that the water they are 
drinking is safe.
  So here is our opportunity to come together and support strong 
groundwater monitoring requirements at impoundment sites that keep all 
of our communities safe, and I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, when we analyzed all of the proposed 
amendments to H.R. 1734 earlier this week, we were eager to accept 
those amendments that might improve the legislation and make the State 
permitting process even stronger so we can ensure that the coal ash 
impoundments are closed in a safe and efficient manner. Unfortunately, 
this amendment would have the opposite effect.
  This amendment would require that all inactive impoundments or legacy 
sites, as they are known, comply with the requirements in the final 
rule to conduct postclosure care, which includes the installation of 
groundwater monitoring.
  While I appreciate and share my colleague's concerns about inactive 
surface impoundments, this amendment would not achieve what I believe 
is my colleague's goal of ensuring the timely closure of inactive 
surface impoundments.
  In the final rule, the EPA recognized the need for efficient and 
timely closure of the inactive impoundments. In fact, the EPA 
incentivized the closure of legacy sites by ensuring that the utilities 
that are able to safely closed inactive impoundments within the 3-year 
deadline would not need to comply with any of the other requirements in 
the final rule, including groundwater monitoring.
  This amendment would wipe out the EPA's incentive for utilities to 
complete closure of inactive surface impoundments in a timely manner by 
requiring that utilities comply with certain requirements immediately.
  In addition, I think there is a broad agreement that the EPA final 
rule is protective with respect to taking steps to address inactive 
surface impoundments.
  The gentleman's amendment goes farther than even what EPA determined 
would be protective to address the legacy site by requiring immediate 
compliance with certain requirements which, as I indicated, would 
remove the incentive for EPA to close inactive impoundments by the 
deadline.
  Many of the inactive surface impoundments will be clean-closed. To 
explain that, that means that all of the coal ash will be removed from 
the impoundment. There is no need for 30 years of postclosure care for 
these particular impoundments.
  So for all these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on this amendment.
  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 question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. 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 Virginia will be postponed.

[[Page H5373]]

                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Adams

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in 
part C of House Report 114-216.
  Ms. ADAMS. 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 29, after line 16, insert the following:
       ``(5) Drinking water supply well survey and provision of 
     alternate water supply.--
       ``(A) Survey.--Not later than 7 months after the date of 
     enactment of this section, each owner or operator of a 
     surface impoundment shall conduct a survey that identifies 
     all drinking water supply wells within one-half mile down-
     gradient from the established waste boundary of the surface 
     impoundment and shall submit the survey to--
       ``(i) the Administrator; and
       ``(ii) the implementing State, if applicable.
       ``(B) Inclusions.--Each survey conducted pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A) shall include well locations, the nature of 
     water uses, available well construction details, and 
     information regarding ownership of the wells.
       ``(C) Determination of sampling.--
       ``(i) In general.--Not later than 4 months after an owner 
     or operator submits a survey under subparagraph (A), the 
     Administrator or the implementing State, as applicable, shall 
     determine which wells identified in the survey the owner or 
     operator will be required to conduct sampling and water 
     quality analysis for, and how frequently and for what period 
     sampling is required.
       ``(ii) Required sampling.--The Administrator or the 
     implementing State, as applicable, shall require sampling and 
     water quality analysis described in clause (i) where data 
     regarding groundwater quality and flow and depth in the area 
     of the surveyed well provide a reasonable basis to predict 
     that the quality of water from the surveyed well may be 
     adversely impacted by coal combustion residuals.
       ``(D) Sampling.--
       ``(i) Initiation.--Not later than 5 months after an owner 
     or operator submits a survey under subparagraph (A), the 
     owner or operator shall initiate any sampling and water 
     quality analysis required pursuant to subparagraph (C) for 
     constituents associated with coal combustion residuals, 
     including, at a minimum, arsenic, lead, hexavalent chromium, 
     vanadium, boron, thallium, molybdenum, and selenium.
       ``(ii) Independent sampling.--A property owner whose well 
     has been selected for sampling and analysis may elect to have 
     an independent third party selected from a laboratory 
     certified by the Administrator or the implementing State, as 
     applicable, conduct the sampling and analysis required under 
     this paragraph in lieu of such sampling and analysis being 
     conducted by the owner or operator of the surface 
     impoundment.
       ``(iii) Costs.--The owner or operator of the surface 
     impoundment shall pay for the reasonable costs of any 
     sampling and analysis conducted pursuant to this paragraph.
       ``(iv) Right to refuse sampling.--Nothing in this paragraph 
     shall be construed to preclude or impair the right of any 
     property owner whose well has been selected for sampling and 
     analysis to refuse such sampling and analysis.
       ``(E) Alternate supplies of drinking water.--If sampling 
     and water quality analysis conducted pursuant to this 
     paragraph indicates that water from a drinking water supply 
     well exceeds groundwater quality standards for constituents 
     associated with the presence of coal combustion residuals, 
     the owner or operator of the surface impoundment, in addition 
     to any other applicable requirement, shall replace such 
     water--
       ``(i) with an alternate supply of potable drinking water, 
     as appropriate, not later than 24 hours after the 
     Administrator or the implementing State, as applicable, 
     determines that there is such an exceedance; and
       ``(ii) with an alternate supply of water that is safe for 
     other household uses, as appropriate, not later than 30 days 
     after the Administrator or the implementing State, as 
     applicable, determines that there is such an exceedance.
       ``(F) Annual groundwater protection and restoration 
     report.--
       ``(i) In general.--Not later than one year after the date 
     of enactment of this section, and each year thereafter, each 
     owner or operator of a surface impoundment required to 
     conduct sampling and water quality analysis pursuant to this 
     paragraph shall submit a report to the Administrator or the 
     implementing State, as applicable, that includes a summary of 
     all groundwater monitoring, protection, and restoration 
     activities related to the surface impoundment for the 
     preceding year, including any replacement of contaminated 
     drinking water pursuant to this paragraph.
       ``(ii) Publicly accessible internet website requirement.--
     Not later than 30 days after submitting a report under clause 
     (i), an owner or operator shall post the report on a publicly 
     accessible Internet website established by the owner or 
     operator in accordance with section 257.107 of title 40, Code 
     of Federal Regulations.
       ``(G) Relationship to other groundwater monitoring 
     requirements.--To the extent that any requirement of this 
     paragraph conflicts with a provision of paragraph (2)(B), the 
     requirement of this paragraph shall control.
       Page 49, after line 7, insert the following:
       ``(6) Implementing state.--The term `implementing State' 
     means--
       ``(A) a State that has notified the Administrator under 
     subsection (b)(1) that it will adopt and implement a coal 
     combustion residuals permit program; or
       ``(B) if a lead State implementing agency has been 
     identified under subsection (b)(2)(C)(i) for such a State, 
     such implementing agency.
       Page 49, line 8, through page 50, line 17, redesignate 
     paragraphs (6) through (8) as paragraphs (7) through (9), 
     respectively.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 369, the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Ms. Adams) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment provides strong and consistent 
safeguards to inform communities about coal ash contaminants in their 
drinking water supply wells.
  We have heard a lot of talk about regulatory certainty, certainty for 
utilities, certainty for coal ash recyclers.
  But what about certainty for children and families who live near coal 
ash sites, certainty of transparency for their parents who rely on well 
water to prepare their children's meals and to bathe them at night?
  These parents have the right to know if their water is safe to 
consume, and they have a right to access that information immediately.
  And what about certainty of accountability to ensure that these 
families can expect an alternate water supply if it has been 
compromised by coal ash pollution?
  North Carolina can give the Nation a lesson about what poor 
management of coal ash looks like. It took a disastrous spill of coal 
ash into the Dan River to make it clear that the protection of our 
communities and waterways could not rely on the goodwill of powerful 
utilities.
  North Carolina learned the hard way that, when State regulators stick 
their heads in the sand to allow the unfettered disposal of coal ash, 
spills happen.
  I would like to share with my colleagues the most recent update on 
well testing from North Carolina's Department of Environment and 
Natural Resources.
  Out of 285 wells tested, 265 show contamination. That is more than 90 
percent of the drinking water wells showing contamination.
  This information is made possible to communities because of S. 729, a 
bill that the North Carolina General Assembly passed last year while I 
served in the legislature.
  Following the Dan River spill, North Carolina now requires owners and 
operators of coal ash dams to identify all drinking water supply wells 
within one-half mile downgradient from the impoundments.
  If sampling indicates high levels of contamination, the owner or 
operator must replace the contaminated drinking water with an alternate 
supply of water that is safe.
  My amendment seeks to provide rural communities across the Nation 
with the same requirements that citizens in North Carolina now enjoy, 
requirements that will give them the certainty that their water is 
safe.
  Americans in North Carolina and across the Nation have the right to 
access safe drinking water, especially rural communities who rely 
overwhelmingly on private wells as their main source of drinking water.
  Finally, coal ash pollution often affects low-income communities who 
don't have the resources to go up against big utilities. Passing this 
amendment will give these communities the resources they deserve to 
protect themselves.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in standing with the people of North 
Carolina and rural communities across the Nation who deserve 
transparency and nothing less.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, we applaud the activity of the State of 
North Carolina--and that is the whole benefit of H.R. 1734--because the 
Federal regulation proposed by EPA is a floor.

[[Page H5374]]

  And through a State certification program, if the States want to ramp 
that up to a higher level, they can. So what North Carolina has done is 
able to be done under the current legislation.
  But the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from North Carolina has 
a lot of problems, and that is why I rise in opposition.
  It would require each owner of a surface impoundment to provide EPA 
or a State certain types of data about all drinking water supply wells, 
to pay for and perform groundwater sampling at these wells, provide 
alternate sources of water, and issue regular reports on these 
activities.
  I understand the gentlewoman's concern, but I am not sure she gets 
there with this amendment.
  She talks about providing certainty. Well, there is already certainty 
to do this under Federal law. Under the Superfund law, which we call 
CERCLA, EPA already has the authority to obtain information, access 
property, and inspect and sample wells if there is a ``reasonable basis 
to believe there may be a release or a threat of release.'' So there is 
already certainty under that law.
  Not only does CERCLA already cover what the gentlewoman is proposing, 
but the Safe Drinking Water Act provides the same authority.
  The amendment would require owners or operators of coal ash disposal 
units to provide an alternative source of drinking water if wells are 
found to exceed existing Safe Drinking Water Act standards.
  But section 1431 of the Safe Drinking Water Act already allows EPA to 
require that alternative sources of drinking water be provided if EPA 
has information that a contaminant ``is likely to enter a public water 
system or an underground source of drinking water.''
  So we already have that in Federal statute, especially if it ``may 
present an imminent and substantial endangerment to the health of 
persons.''
  Beyond the duplication existing in the law that we already have, 
there are also concerns with the amendment.
  The amendment focuses on drinking water wells that are one-half mile 
down-gradient from a surface impoundment. This seems an arbitrary 
determination, that for all States and for all impoundments, that that 
is where the groundwater is.
  And that is definitely not true around the country. Can we be sure 
that this is the correct distance? Why was that number selected?
  The amendment would require the owners or operators to provide an 
alternative source of drinking water within 24 hours.
  While we completely understand the need to move quickly to provide a 
solution, it may not be feasible to secure an alternate source of 
drinking water within that short a period of time.
  Perhaps of greater concern, the amendment includes key terms like 
``drinking water supply well'' that are undefined, and the amendment 
would trump all other groundwater monitoring requirements required by 
the EPA final rule and State permit programs.
  We are not trying to re-create existing authority. Rather, we are 
focused on getting the folks with the most experience and knowledge of 
this issue to address coal ash disposal units and ensure that they are 
not causing contamination.
  But I assure you that H.R. 1734 already mandates that, if disposal 
units are causing problems, States will utilize all available 
authorities to ensure that their citizens have safe drinking water.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1730

  Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment which would 
improve protection for human health and the environment nationwide, and 
I would like to thank my colleague from North Carolina for her hard 
work on this important issue and for offering this amendment.
  The citizens and government of North Carolina recognize the 
seriousness of the risks posed by coal ash. They have experienced the 
devastation coal ash can cause, and that is why even Republicans in the 
State government have supported strengthening regulation of coal ash.
  Representative Adams speaks from personal experience that many of us 
have been spared, but we should not wait for more coal ash disasters to 
adopt strong, preventive measures.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and vote 
``yes,'' but I do want to caution that, like my colleague, I will urge 
a ``no'' vote on final passage even if this amendment passes.
  Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from North Carolina will be 
postponed.


               Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Butterfield

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in 
part C of House Report 114-216.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. 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 47, after line 5, insert the following:
       ``(m) Effect on Vulnerable Populations.--If the 
     Administrator determines that implementation of this section 
     would diminish protections for vulnerable populations, the 
     requirements of this section shall have no force or effect.
       Page 47, line 6, redesignate subsection (m) as subsection 
     (n).
       Page 50, line 17, strike the closed quotation mark and the 
     final period.
       Page 50, after line 17, insert the following:
       ``(9) Vulnerable population.--The term `vulnerable 
     population' means a population that is subject to a 
     disproportionate exposure to, or potential for a 
     disproportionate adverse effect from exposure to, coal 
     combustion residuals, including--
       ``(A) infants, children, and adolescents;
       ``(B) pregnant women (including effects on fetal 
     development);
       ``(C) the elderly;
       ``(D) individuals with preexisting medical conditions;
       ``(E) individuals who work at coal combustion residuals 
     treatment or disposal facilities; and
       ``(F) members of any other appropriate population 
     identified by the Administrator based on consideration of--
       ``(i) socioeconomic status;
       ``(ii) racial or ethnic background; or
       ``(iii) other similar factors identified by the 
     Administrator.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 369, the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Butterfield) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment that will ensure that 
vulnerable communities are protected from the unsafe storage of coal 
combustion residuals known as coal ash.
  My amendment is simple. It would prevent the coal ash regulation 
framework in this bill from going into effect if States fail to protect 
vulnerable populations from the adverse effects of haphazard coal ash 
storage. Vulnerable populations defined in the amendment include 
infants, children, adolescents, pregnant women, the elderly, racial or 
ethnic groups, and others identified by the EPA Administrator.
  Mr. Chairman, the EPA estimates that 70 percent of coal ash 
impoundments are located in low-income communities. Coal ash 
impoundments lacking proper safeguards can fail, resulting in the 
leaching of harmful chemicals into surface and groundwater. Coal ash 
stored in pools have caused water contamination in 37 States.
  In worst case scenarios, catastrophic failures cause coal ash slurry 
to flow directly into rivers, streams, ponds, and lakes. The largest 
coal ash spill in U.S. history occurred in 2008 in Kingston, Tennessee, 
when 5.4 million cubic

[[Page H5375]]

yards of toxic sludge spilled into a nearby river, causing a Superfund 
site which could cost $1.2 billion in remediation costs.
  In February of 2014, 82,000 tons of coal ash spilled into the Dan 
River in Eden, North Carolina, near the district of Ms. Adams, who just 
spoke a moment ago, after a pipe burst, causing a coal ash impoundment 
failure. Costs for that cleanup are $300 million in the short term and 
could potentially have a much greater long-term impact.
  Mr. Chairman, the majority of coal ash ponds are located in close 
proximity to vulnerable communities. It is important to protect those 
communities from being disproportionately affected by poor coal ash 
storage.
  This commonsense amendment ensures that--if this bill were to go into 
effect--vulnerable populations are protected from the potentially 
adverse effects of coal ash exposure. Mr. Chairman, I urge my 
colleagues to support the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we first learned about this amendment before us late on 
Monday. Of course, I was struck by the gentleman's deep concern for 
vulnerable populations, people who, because of circumstances or 
physical attributes, are more at risk than others when it comes to 
certain environmental exposures.
  The gentleman knows well that I share his concern. He knows it from 
our committee work earlier this year on the TSCA Modernization Act. We 
reached a unanimous committee position in this area, in fact, 
throughout the bill.
  I reached out to him early Tuesday morning and tried to explain the 
gentleman's amendment was problematic as drafted; and we offered to 
work with him on a version that addressed his concern without, frankly, 
gutting the rest of our bill.
  Despite hard work from both teams and staff all day Tuesday, we were 
not able to reach the agreement, so the gentleman opted to revert to 
his original proposal which is what we are considering now.
  Mr. Chairman, I see three basic problems with the amendments as being 
offered.
  First, it gives the EPA Administrator effective unilateral veto power 
over the entire coal ash bill upon any EPA finding that somewhere, 
somehow, a vulnerable subpopulation is not protected. This, of course, 
undoes the entire premise of the bill that brings together the best of 
the EPA-proposed rule and the states' expertise and dedication in 
regulating solid waste through permit programs.
  Second, the gentleman defines ``vulnerable subpopulation'' by listing 
around 10 specific population groups for protection. Everyone on his 
list, I agree with, including, for example, infants, elderly, and 
persons based on racial or ethnic backgrounds; but when we include some 
on a list, we can wind up excluding others.
  It is a basic principle of legislative drafting. I think we should be 
sure to include all vulnerable groups, and we suggested to the 
gentleman language to do just that. I regret that we were not able to 
reach an agreement.
  Third, Mr. Chairman, I am not sure the gentleman's amendment passes 
constitutional scrutiny. I understand that we, in the Congress, have 
sweeping power to waive requirements of law; but I don't think we can 
give a single Administrator power to cancel a law altogether. In my 
view, only the President himself has that power, subject to override 
votes in the Congress.
  I am willing to work this out with the gentleman, and we did try. I 
regret very much that this amendment does not reflect these efforts, so 
I have to urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. It is true that we did make a valiant effort 
yesterday to try to reach some common ground on this amendment, and 
regrettably, we were not able to get there.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his courtesy and his 
willingness to have the conversation, and hopefully, we can continue to 
try to legislate in a way that will protect vulnerable communities from 
this type of activity.
  Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the ranking member of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment. It 
raises an important point that should be part of our dialogue on all 
environmental issues, and I thank my colleague for offering it.
  The unsafe disposal of coal ash poses serious risk to human health 
and the environment. Those dangers are particularly acute for the 
minority and low-income communities that often live near coal ash 
disposal sites.
  Unfortunately, this dangerous bill would diminish protections for 
those communities most at risk. Important safeguards would be 
eliminated, and significant discretion would be given to States to 
choose whether or not other safeguards will apply.
  This discretion will hurt hotspot communities for the same reason 
that they host these dangerous communities; it is because they do not 
have the political clout and voice that other communities have. We must 
recognize the disproportionate risks faced by vulnerable populations 
and ensure that those risks are addressed, and that is what this 
amendment does.
  While I don't support the bill overall, Mr. Chairman, I do urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment and vote ``yes.''
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the 
Butterfield-Rush-Clarke-Price-Adams amendment.
  The December 2014 coal ash rule was a reasonable compromise between 
the EPA and the energy industry, based on sound science and three 
decades of research into the significant human and environmental health 
consequences of ash spills. I will oppose the underlying legislation 
because, as my colleagues have noted, it would unjustifiably eliminate, 
undermine, or delay the well-thought out protections included in this 
compromise rule.
  Our amendment gets at another issue. There is a great risk that this 
legislation could be especially harmful to some of our nation's most 
vulnerable populations--and here I mean pregnant women, children, the 
elderly, low-income Americans--because nearly 70% of coal ash ponds are 
located in communities where the majority earns an income that falls 
below the national average, and where communities of color are 
disproportionately represented.
  Our amendment is very simple--it would require the Administrator of 
the EPA to determine whether this legislation unfairly affects these 
vulnerable populations. If it does, its provisions would not go into 
effect.
  Misguided deregulation is one thing; outright discrimination is 
another. Let's make sure that we're not prioritizing the energy 
industry's bottom line over the health and welfare of women, children, 
the elderly, and low-income Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. 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 North Carolina will be 
postponed.


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments printed in part C of House Report 114-216 on 
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Pallone of New Jersey.
  Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Connolly of Virginia.
  Amendment No. 5 by Ms. Adams of North Carolina.
  Amendment No. 6 by Mr. Butterfield of North Carolina.
  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. Pallone

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.

[[Page H5376]]

  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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177, 
noes 244, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 453]

                               AYES--177

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rice (NY)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--244

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bass
     Brady (PA)
     Carter (TX)
     Clawson (FL)
     Franks (AZ)
     Graves (MO)
     Gutierrez
     Hinojosa
     Huffman
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Stivers

                              {time}  1810

  Messrs. BUCSHON and JODY B. HICE of Georgia changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. MENG, Messrs. PERLMUTTER, BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania, and 
DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 453, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yes.''


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Connolly

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) 
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 will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177, 
noes 245, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 454]

                               AYES--177

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     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)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rice (NY)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--245

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)

[[Page H5377]]


     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bass
     Brady (PA)
     Carter (TX)
     Clawson (FL)
     Diaz-Balart
     Franks (AZ)
     Graves (MO)
     Gutierrez
     McDermott
     Rangel
     Richmond


                       Announcement by the Chair

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

                              {time}  1815

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


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Adams

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. 
Adams) 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 192, 
noes 231, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 455]

                               AYES--192

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Dent
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Zinke

                               NOES--231

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bass
     Brady (PA)
     Carter (TX)
     Clawson (FL)
     Franks (AZ)
     Graves (MO)
     Gutierrez
     Kaptur
     McDermott
     Rangel


                       Announcement by the Chair

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

                              {time}  1820

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


               Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Butterfield

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Butterfield) 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.

[[Page H5378]]

  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 180, 
noes 240, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 456]

                               AYES--180

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--240

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bass
     Brady (PA)
     Carter (TX)
     Clawson (FL)
     Costa
     Duffy
     Franks (AZ)
     Graves (MO)
     Gutierrez
     Kinzinger (IL)
     McDermott
     Meeks
     Rangel

                              {time}  1825

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


                          personal explanation

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chair, on rollcall Nos. 454, 455, and 456. I was 
detained doing a TV appearance with Rev. Al Sharpton on MSNBC, Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on 454, 455, and 456.

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Chaffetz). There being no further amendments, 
under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hultgren) having assumed the chair, Mr. Chaffetz, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1734) 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 369, he reported the bill back to the 
House with sundry amendments 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 reported from the 
Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

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

       Mr. Foster moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1734 to the 
     Energy and Commerce Committee, with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith, with the following 
     amendment:
       Page 11, after line 16, insert the following:
       ``(D) Protecting drinking water and the great lakes.--The 
     implementing agency shall require that all structures that 
     are surface impoundments meet criteria for design, 
     construction, operation, and maintenance sufficient to--
       ``(i) prevent any toxic contamination of groundwater; and
       ``(ii) protect sources of drinking water, including the 
     Great Lakes, the largest freshwater system in the world.

  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster) is recognized for 5 minutes 
in support of his motion.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, 
which will not kill the bill or send it back to the committee. If 
adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended.
  What this commonsense amendment does is something that I think we 
should all be able to agree is a good thing; it protects our drinking 
water. My motion to recommit would require that coal ash impoundments 
must be sufficient to prevent toxic contamination of groundwater and to 
protect all sources of drinking water, including but not limited to the 
Great Lakes.
  Coal ash--the material left after coal is burned--contains many toxic 
elements, including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, and selenium. 
Arsenic exposure can lead to nervous system damage, cardiovascular 
issues, urinary tract cancers, lung cancer, and skin cancer.

[[Page H5379]]

  When people are exposed to lead, they may experience brain swelling, 
kidney disease, heart problems, nervous system damage, a drop in 
intelligence, or even death. If not handled properly, these toxins can 
and do leach from storage sites and contaminate nearby water sources.
  I think my colleagues on both sides of the aisle can agree that we 
don't want our children drinking water contaminated with lead, arsenic, 
and other toxic compounds; but that is exactly what happens when these 
surface impoundments are not properly built, maintained, and monitored.
  According to a 2010 EPA risk assessment, people living near unlined 
coal ash ponds have an increase in lifetime cancer risk as high as 1 in 
50 caused by the arsenic contamination alone in their drinking water. I 
suspect that this is a much higher risk than any of us would accept for 
our families and ourselves.
  I do not believe that it is an accident that coal ash ponds, as well 
as the coal plants that produce them, are disproportionately located in 
economically disadvantaged areas, placing the burden on those with few 
resources to defend themselves and the health of their families.
  A 2011 report by the Environmental Integrity Project found that my 
home State of Illinois has the second most sites contaminated by coal 
ash in the country, and that Illinois EPA data showed groundwater 
contamination exceeding health standards at all 22 coal ash-related 
sites the Agency monitored.
  We know that there are coal ash ponds contaminating groundwater. Some 
are located in Waukegan, Illinois, which borders Lake Michigan. 
Contamination in Illinois is not just a problem for the people of 
Illinois; it is a problem for the entire country.
  Water crosses State boundaries in lakes, rivers, and underground 
aquifers. That is why coal ash should be regulated at the national 
level, but at a minimum, we should demand that groundwater and drinking 
water be protected.
  The Great Lakes are the largest freshwater system in the world, and 
it is unconscionable that we are considering a bill today that would 
weaken protections for the water that many of us drink.
  The vote on this motion to recommit is fundamentally about whether or 
not you believe that all people in our country deserve access to safe 
drinking water.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion and ``yes'' to 
protecting the health of millions of American families.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of 
order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The reservation is withdrawn.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I claim the time in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. We have had a good afternoon on debating the many 
amendments that have been brought forward. Let me just briefly, in this 
short time, talk about what we have done.
  We have taken the recent EPA rule and codified it. In other words, we 
set it into statutory language so it can be enforceable. That allows 
States to set up State permitting programs that can be enforced.
  We trust States with what we call the Solid Waste Disposal Act, which 
is RCRA, to protect the Great Lakes. I think we can trust the States, 
in working with minimal Federal standards, to do the same thing.
  The EPA, three times, has determined that coal ash is not toxic--the 
EPA has determined three times. In 1993, in 2000, and with their 
recently released rule in December, they said coal ash is not toxic.
  I am going to end on two letters that we mentioned in the bill 
markups and on the floor. We have the group called ECOS, Environmental 
Council of the States, which all the States' EPA directors; and also 
another group, called ASTSWMO, which is the Association of State and 
Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, which is in all 
territories; and the Western Governors' Association. There is not a 
single dissent. The Western Governors' Association includes California, 
Oregon, and Washington State.
  They all support H.R. 1734 because it actually does the opposite of 
what my colleague claimed. It strengthens the law. It codifies our 
ability to enforce the result so that our communities are safe.
  I appreciate my colleague's motion. I ask my colleagues to reject it, 
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

  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 5-
minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a 5-minute 
vote on passage of the bill, if ordered.
  This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 184, 
noes 240, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 457]

                               AYES--184

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     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)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--240

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce

[[Page H5380]]


     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Barton
     Bass
     Brady (PA)
     Carter (TX)
     Clawson (FL)
     Franks (AZ)
     Graves (MO)
     Gutierrez
     Rangel


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1842

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 258, 
noes 166, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 458]

                               AYES--258

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Beatty
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clay
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Moore
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--166

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bass
     Brady (PA)
     Carter (TX)
     Clawson (FL)
     Franks (AZ)
     Graves (MO)
     Gutierrez
     Rangel
     Zinke

                              {time}  1849

  Mr. TAKAI changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House 
chamber for votes on Wednesday, July 22, 2015. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes: 453, 454, 455, 456, and 
457. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall votes: 
450, 451, 452, and 458.

                          ____________________