[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 41 (Tuesday, March 15, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H1365-H1381]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         SATISFYING ENERGY NEEDS AND SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. WHITFIELD. 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. 3797.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 640 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. 3797.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1417


                     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. 3797) to establish the bases by which the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency shall issue, implement, and enforce 
certain emission limitations and allocations for existing electric 
utility steam generating units that convert coal refuse into energy, 
with Mr. Westmoreland 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 Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) and the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  It is not often that Congress has the opportunity to help an industry 
that creates both jobs and energy while also improving the environment, 
and it is especially rare when we can do that at no cost to the 
taxpayer. H.R. 3797, the SENSE Act, accomplishes all this. That is why 
we are here today, and that is why I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' 
on this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Rothfus), the author of the legislation.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. I thank the chairman for yielding, and I thank him for 
the support that he and the Energy and Commerce Committee have 
expressed for H.R. 3797, the Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the 
Environment Act, also known as the SENSE Act.
  Mr. Chair, the SENSE Act is a vitally important effort that I have 
championed in various forms for my nearly 3 years in Congress. This 
bill recognizes the overwhelming success of the endangered coal refuse-
to-energy industry in making my district in western Pennsylvania and 
others across coal country healthier and cleaner places to work and 
live.
  Without the SENSE Act, coal refuse-to-energy facilities will close, 
and their environmental mediation efforts will end. Contrary to the 
claims of this legislation's supposedly environmentalist opponents, the 
SENSE Act is a pro-environment bill.
  As many of you know, the coal industry has been an important part of 
the economy in Pennsylvania for many generations. Historic mining 
activity unfortunately left behind large piles of coal refuse. These 
piles consist of lower quality coal mixed with rock and dirt. For a 
long time, we did not have the technology to use this material, so it 
accumulated in large piles in cities and towns, close to schools and 
neighborhoods, and in fields across the countryside. This has led to a 
number of environmental problems that diminish the quality of life for 
many people in the surrounding areas. Vegetation and wildlife have been 
harmed, the air has been polluted, and acid mine drainage has impaired 
nearby rivers and streams.
  I have been to many of these sites and seen firsthand the 
environmental danger they pose. Coal refuse piles can catch fire, 
causing dangerous and uncontrolled air pollution. Runoff from these 
sites can turn rivers orange and leave them devoid of life.
  The cost to clean all this up is astronomical. Pennsylvania's 
environmental regulator estimates that fixing abandoned mine lands 
could take over $16 billion, $2 billion of which would be needed for 
coal refuse piles alone.

[[Page H1366]]

  We needed an innovative solution to this tough challenge. A 
commonsense compromise was necessary to get the job done and protect 
the environment. That is where the coal refuse-to-energy industry comes 
in. Using advanced technology, this industry has been able to use this 
previously worthless material to generate electricity. This activity 
powers remediation efforts that have so far been successful in removing 
over 200 million tons of coal refuse and repairing formerly polluted 
sites across the Commonwealth and other historic coal regions.
  Thanks to the hard work of the dedicated people in this industry, 
landscapes have been restored, rivers and streams have been brought 
back to life, and towns across coal country have been relieved of 
unsafe and unsightly waste coal piles.
  They do say that a picture paints a thousand words, and that is what 
I have here. In the foreground you have a waste coal pile that is under 
the process of remediation. In the background, the green hillside used 
to look just like the black foreground that you see here. This has been 
reclaimed. This is what is happening across Pennsylvania as we restore 
these hillsides.
  It is important to note that private sector leadership on this issue 
has saved taxpayers millions of dollars in cleanup costs. That is why 
Pennsylvania's abandoned mine reclamation groups have endorsed my bill, 
and that is why we have also earned the support of clean water 
advocates.
  Unfortunately, intensifying and inflexible EPA regulations threaten 
to bring much of the coal refuse industry's activity to a halt. This 
would leave billions of dollars of vital cleanup unfinished, lead to 
thousands of job losses, and endanger our energy security.
  The SENSE Act addresses challenges arising from the implementation of 
two existing rules: MATS, the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, and 
CSAPR, known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule.
  Though all coal refuse-fired power generators can meet--can meet--the 
mercury standard under MATS, many facilities will be unable to meet the 
rule's new hydrogen chloride or sulfur dioxide standards. Contrary to 
what critics allege, the SENSE Act simply provides operators with 
alternative MATS compliance standards that are strict but achievable.
  Similarly, although coal refuse-fired power generators were provided 
sufficient sulfur dioxide allocations in phase 1 of CSAPR's 
implementation, these facilities were allocated insufficient credits in 
phase 2, which is set to begin in 2017. The SENSE Act seeks to provide 
coal refuse-fired power generators with the same allocations levels in 
phase 2 as in phase 1.
  My bill also contains provisions to ensure that this change does not 
simply create a profit center for the industry. Credits allocated as a 
result of the SENSE Act's implementation must go to covered plants, 
specifically those that use bituminous coal refuse, and they cannot be 
sold off to other operators.

  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. In the last Congress, I merely attempted to exempt these 
facilities from MATS compliance with SO2 and HCl. Building 
upon my efforts, Senators Toomey and Casey from the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania offered a bipartisan amendment providing similar treatment 
for these plants within the context of both MATS and CSAPR. While this 
proposal was supported by a bipartisan majority of Senators, it failed 
to achieve the supermajority necessary to pass.
  What we are looking to achieve today is much narrower and far more 
limited than our effort in the last Congress, which received bipartisan 
support. This should not be a controversial or bipartisan issue. We 
want to hold this industry to high standards, but standards they can 
actually achieve.
  My bill will help keep the coal refuse industry in business so that 
the local community, economy, and environment will continue to reap the 
benefits. The people who live near coal refuse piles and all of the 
communities downstream of these hazards expect us to find a solution.
  I thank the chairman for his time and cooperation with this vital 
piece of legislation.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3797. Once again, this 
House is using valuable time to consider a bill that has no chance of 
becoming law.
  H.R. 3797, the Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the Environment 
Act, or the SENSE Act, is an unnecessary bill that undermines public 
health and the environment. Unfortunately, this is no surprise. 
Throughout this Congress and the previous one, House Republicans have 
brought many bills to the floor that undermine the Clean Air Act, which 
also undermines public health and environmental protection. But this 
bill deserves special recognition because it also undermines States' 
authorities and picks winners and losers in the emission reduction 
effort.
  H.R. 3797 denies a State's right to decide which tradeoffs to make in 
allocating emission credits among different facilities in its 
jurisdiction. It allows waste coal-burning facilities to generate more 
pollution, forcing other facilities, including traditional coal-fired 
utilities, to find greater emission reductions.
  The legislation undermines two important public health rules issued 
under the Clean Air Act. The first is the Cross-State Air Pollution 
Rule, or CSAPR, and the second is the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, 
or MATS, rule. These rules will help reduce toxic air emissions, 
including sulfur dioxide, hydrochloric acid, and mercury, which makes 
the air cleaner and safer to breathe for all of us.
  CSAPR uses an emissions trading mechanism to incentivize utilities 
and other facilities to reduce harmful air pollutants. These market-
based mechanisms have been very successful at reducing pollution at the 
lowest cost. Facilities that become cleaner, either by becoming more 
efficient, installing pollution control equipment, or by switching to 
another fuel, generate valuable pollution credits, and they can use 
these credits or sell them to other facilities.
  Unfortunately, this legislation undermines the proven market 
mechanism used in CSAPR. If the SENSE Act were to become law, there 
would be far less incentive to reduce pollution because the bill 
effectively reduces the value of making emission control investments.
  With respect to the second rule, the MATS rule, the bill's advocates 
claim that waste coal plants deserve special consideration due to the 
nature of the fuel that they burn. They argue that these plants are 
being used to clean up waste coal piles, the coal refuse and other 
materials that were left over from past coal mining operations. This 
waste causes land and water pollution problems in many former coal 
mining areas.
  While there may be benefits to burning waste coal to generate 
electricity, it can and should be done in a manner that avoids undue 
air pollution. Otherwise, the problems that now exist on land and in 
the water will simply be transferred to the air and spread out over a 
larger area. Mercury, in particular, is a highly toxic substance that 
does not break down. It is associated with serious health impacts, 
including neurotoxicity and cancer.
  The operators of waste coal facilities asked EPA to consider their 
facilities separately from other coal plants, but EPA found these 
facilities are able to comply with these rules and there is no 
justification for treating waste coal facilities differently from other 
coal-fired generation facilities--and the courts agreed. These are 
coal-burning utilities, and they can use existing pollution control 
technologies to reduce their emissions.
  So, Mr. Chairman, under the conditions of CSAPR, States have the 
authority to design their own emission allocation. Today, a State can 
allow waste coal facilities to emit higher levels of pollution and 
impose stricter pollution limits on other facilities if they choose to 
do so, but this legislation eliminates the State's flexibility and 
imposes a one-size-fits-all solution on the States. This legislation is 
essentially coming to the floor to benefit fewer than 20 facilities 
that exist in a handful of States, with most of the facilities located 
in Pennsylvania.

[[Page H1367]]

  The States already have the ability to provide waste coal facilities 
with additional emission credits or other assistance if they choose to 
do so. So the SENSE Act creates more problems than it solves. It is 
unnecessary. It undermines the incentive to produce cleaner air, which 
is essential to improving public health and the environment, and it 
undermines State authority.
  The White House strongly opposes the bill and has issued a veto 
threat saying that it would threaten the health of Americans. I agree, 
and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Carter).
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3797, the Satisfying 
Energy Needs and Saving the Environment Act, or the SENSE Act.
  Mr. Chairman, coal refuse is an aboveground waste product of coal 
mining that can pose a number of environmental and safety threats to 
our country. To address these threats, specialized power plants, known 
as coal refuse-to-energy plants, were developed to recycle their waste 
product while generating affordable, reliable electricity to the 
American people.

                              {time}  1430

  Yet, the EPA has continually written rules and regulations that will 
ultimately shut down these specialized plants.
  The Agency's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and their Mercury and Air 
Toxics Standards include certain emission limits that are just not 
achievable for coal refuse-to-energy plants.
  These EPA regulations will cost and result in billions of dollars in 
environmental cleanup. This could all be prevented by refuse-to-energy 
plants.
  That is why H.R. 3797 is so important. It will provide targeted 
modifications to the EPA rules as they apply to coal refuse-to-energy 
plants.
  There are no major initiatives. There are no new laws being created. 
We are only making target modifications to EPA's Cross-State Air 
Pollution Rule and their Mercury and Air Toxics Standards so Americans 
can receive safe, affordable energy, keep their jobs, and have a 
cleaner environment.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3797 so that we can make sure 
that we continue to create more jobs while making our environment 
cleaner.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle), my colleague.
  Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank 
my ranking member, Mr. Pallone, for the time.
  I rise in opposition to the SENSE Act.
  This bill, introduced by Congressman Rothfus from my home State, is 
an effort to help coal refuse plants, most of which are located in the 
State of Pennsylvania.
  Industry estimates that coal waste piles cover approximately 170,000 
acres of Pennsylvania, left over from coal-mining operations that 
stopped decades ago.
  Coal refuse plants then turn this coal waste into a small portion of 
Pennsylvania's energy portfolio and play an important part in 
remediating and rehabilitating the environment.
  Left alone, these waste coal fields can pollute the groundwater and 
contaminate other water sources. They can also, if sparked by an ATV, 
lightning, or other occurrences, burn unabated and release dangerous 
pollutants at eye level.
  For years, these waste coal plants have provided an important 
service, turning environmental hazards into energy. Accordingly, they 
have enjoyed many years of bipartisan support in my home State.
  I want to say at the outset I appreciate what Mr. Rothfus is trying 
to do. This is an important issue in our State, and it needs to be 
addressed. The problem is it is his solution that I can't support.
  This bill seeks to make it easier for these plants to comply with two 
regulations, CSAPR and MATS. It does this not by funding new technology 
to make plants cleaner or more efficient, reducing costs of operation, 
or changing electricity contracts.
  Instead, what the SENSE Act does is two things. It fundamentally 
changes CSAPR by playing favorites with power sources and then rolls 
back important standards under MATS.
  By extending phase 1 implementation standards for SO2 for 
only these plants, but not increasing the overall cap, the SENSE Act 
prioritizes coal refuse plants over all other sources of electricity.
  All other sources in my home State have to make up for the extra 
credits coal refuse plants get to keep. This is bad policy and bad 
practice. You can't rob Peter to pay Paul in complying with 
regulations.
  The SENSE Act would significantly increase the proportion of 
SO2 credits allocated to coal refuse plants. I have seen 
estimates that the percentage of SO2 credits allocated to 
these plants would actually double. Again, all other plants in my State 
would then have to make up the difference.
  The SENSE Act also removes an important option provided to States 
under CSAPR: the ability to draft and submit their own compliance plan.
  At this point, our State has chosen not to take this option, but we 
shouldn't remove Pennsylvania's and other States' abilities to craft 
their own implementation plans. The SENSE Act just creates alternative 
implementation standards for coal refuse plants under MATS that are 
weaker on protecting our air.
  What comes next? I know we have implementation dates for 
NOX standards that could be tough across the coal industry 
in my own State. Are coal refuse plants going to come back and say they 
need another carveout, another exception? This just sets a bad 
precedent.
  But it is not just a bad precedent. It is a dangerous precedent. 
CSAPR and MATS protect the air we breath and help mitigate the impact 
that we have on our climate. If every single source of power was 
allowed to make exceptions to rules and regulations, we would be in 
deep trouble.
  There are coal refuse plants that burn both bituminous and anthracite 
waste coal that have said they will be able to comply with CSAPR and 
MATS. There are only 19 of these facilities in the entire country.
  Fourteen of them are in Pennsylvania, and five of those plants say 
they can comply with CSAPR and MATS as currently written. They may need 
to add some new technology and improve their processes, but that is the 
nature of the power industry in the 21st century.
  It is changing. We have to adapt. Bills that roll back or modify 
these regulations I just don't believe are the right way forward. I 
think there may be alternative ways forward on this tough issue.
  Like I said earlier, these plants provide an important environmental 
benefit to my home State, and I would like to see it continue.
  We should look at all available options, whether it is States 
drafting their own implementation plants, whether it is providing a tax 
credit for the processing of this coal based on its environmental 
benefit, incentivizing other plants to co-fire with waste coal, or 
adding new fuel sources at existing waste coal plants.
  I want to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take 
a hard look at this and try to come up with a solution that we can all 
agree to because this is a critical issue.
  I want to thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for bringing much-
needed attention to waste coal. I hope that we are able to work 
together on this issue in the future. But, for now, the SENSE Act is 
not the right solution to the problem, and I must oppose it.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend Mr. Rothfus once again for 
introducing this important legislation.
  We find ourselves here today because the EPA in the Obama 
administration has been more aggressive than any EPA in history.
  I might say that the Supreme Court recently issued a stay on the 
clean energy plan because it was so extreme, so unprecedented, that 
even legal scholars

[[Page H1368]]

like Professor Larry Tribe at Harvard University said that the clean 
energy plan was like tearing up the Constitution of the U.S., that what 
they are doing under that plan is so extreme.
  What we are talking about here is we are talking about 19 coal 
refuse-to-energy facilities operating in America. They employ about 
1,200 people directly, about 4,000 people indirectly, and they have a 
payroll of about $84 million a year. Each one of these plants, on 
average, is less than 100 megawatts.

  The amount of emissions is very small. But the fact that they are 
able to use coal refuse that has been accumulating for years and years 
and years as America burned coal to produce electricity--we have a lot 
of waste refuse out there. These plants are cleaning it up. We know 
that, without this kind of cleanup, taxpayer dollars would be used to 
do it.
  It is true that they have some emissions. It is also true that there 
is a tremendous environmental benefit by cleaning it up, not to mention 
the jobs that are created.
  Now, people always say: Well, if you change this rule at all, if you 
adjust what EPA has done at all, you are going to make it more harmful 
to Americans who are breathing the air.
  In our hearings about this particular issue, the Mercury and Air 
Toxics rule, I want to point out that the EPA admitted that its own 
Mercury and Air Toxics rule would not generate significant mercury 
reduction benefits and, in fact, attributes nearly all of that rule's 
benefits to the indirect reductions in fine particulate matter that is 
regulated in another part of the Clean Air Act.
  EPA itself has admitted that allowing these plants to operate and the 
adjustments to be made is not a significant issue.
  If you consider the fact that--actually, the U.S. Court of Appeals 
rendered a decision because a lawsuit was brought about EPA not forming 
a special subcategory for these coal refuse plants and they said it was 
not a violation of the Clean Air Act, that a subcategory was not set up 
by EPA.
  But if you read the opinion, EPA certainly could have set up a 
special category for these coal refuse plants and decided not to do it.
  The reason we are here today is because we have a job. We are the 
party, we are the body, that wrote the Clean Air Act, and we disagree 
with the EPA on this particular issue.
  We are saying 19 plants, 14 in one State, 1,200 jobs directly, 4,000 
jobs indirectly, $84 million in a payroll, and EPA itself says this is 
not a major environmental issue.
  We make the argument that the benefits of cleaning up these abandoned 
sites would offset the minute lack of reduction in the MATS rule and 
the SOx rule.
  For those reasons, I respectfully would say that I think, overall, 
the benefits are much greater by adopting the SENSE Act as authored by 
Mr. Rothfus.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to respond to some of the Republican claims 
regarding the MATS rule.
  The Energy and Commerce Committee held a legislative hearing on the 
SENSE Act on February 3 of this year. At that hearing, we heard 
testimony regarding the ability of waste coal units to meet the 
requirements of the MATS rule.
  As Mr. Walke testified, when waste coal plants owners filed lawsuits 
challenging the MATS rule, claiming it was ``virtually impossible to 
meet the acid gas and sulfur dioxide limits,'' the court had little 
trouble rejecting these arguments unanimously.
  The judge pointed to the evidence and data submitted to EPA showing 
that many of the waste coal units could already meet the rule's acid 
gas standard or alternative sulfur dioxide standard.
  The court also noted that some of these already-compliant plants are 
among the best performers in reducing hydrogen chloride emissions among 
all coal-burning power plants around the country.
  If the majority, along with the bill's proponents, are trying to say 
that the bill is needed because all of the currently operating waste 
coal units can't meet the MATS standards, that is not how the Clean Air 
Act works.
  The Clean Air Act's use of maximum achievable control technology for 
setting air pollution standards takes a reasonable approach.
  It says that EPA should set emission limits based on the emission 
levels already being achieved by similar facilities in the real world.
  For existing sources, EPA bases the emission standards for each 
pollutant on the average emissions achieved by the best performing 12 
percent of facilities.
  Congress, in setting up its program, did not want to merely maintain 
the status quo. They wanted all facilities within an industrial sector 
to make the necessary upgrades to reduce their emissions in line with 
the best performing units.
  The advocates of this bill claim that coal refuse facilities should 
be treated differently from other coal fuel-generation facilities and 
that the technology and fuel used would prevent these facilities from 
meeting the MATS standards for acid gases and sulfur dioxide, but that 
is simply not true.
  First, under the MATS rule, facilities have a choice of meeting 
either the acid gas standard or the sulfur dioxide standard. They don't 
have to meet both.
  But, second, there is emission control technology available today 
that can bring these waste coal facilities into compliance with the 
rule.
  I see no justification for allowing these facilities to emit more 
pollutants than other similar facilities.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to point out, once again, that we are here because Congress 
wants to make the decision that the EPA should set up subcategories in 
this particular instance. Both the Clean Air Act and the EPA 
regulations promulgated under it, on a routine basis, divide regulated 
entities into separate categories, but the EPA was unwilling to do it 
in this case primarily because coal was involved. It is no secret that 
when the President was running, in an editorial interview in San 
Francisco, he made the comment publicly that he would bankrupt the coal 
industry; and that actually is happening.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), the author of this bill.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, there are only 19 plants we are talking about here and 
four States that are involved. There are some plants out there that can 
comply--there is not a question about that--but there are only a few of 
them, and we are looking at a number of plants that do not have the 
capacity to comply with these one-size-fits-all standards.
  While the State should be looking at this, the SENSE Act does what 
the EPA should have done in creating these categories. It could take up 
to 2 years, Mr. Chairman, for the EPA to get back as to any kind of 
modification. The State could propose a change, but then it has to wait 
and wait and wait, and while it waits, we will see power plants close 
that do not have this technology.
  There is something called a ``margin'' in business, Mr. Chairman. You 
take a look at the expense of doing things, you look at the cost of 
things, and you look at the income. Once the expense or the cost 
exceeds the income, plants' businesses go out of business. People lose 
jobs. That is what we are talking about. In this case, not only do 
people lose jobs, but the tremendous environmental cleanup stops that 
is taking place.
  Pennsylvania estimates it would take $2 billion to clean up these 
waste coal sites. I have walked the fields where they have been cleaned 
up in Allegheny County and in Cambria County. I have seen hillsides on 
which deer now graze where it used to be just a martian landscape, and 
I have seen rivers that used to be orange that now have fish in them. 
This is an industry that has been cleaning up these sites without the 
taxpayers picking up the tabs.
  Every State in this country is having budget issues and is trying to 
find resources to address critical things like

[[Page H1369]]

environmental cleanup. This is something that is working. When you have 
one size fits all, where the EPA refuses to make an accommodation 
because it does not recognize the tremendous benefit that these 
facilities are bringing to Pennsylvania, that is what this legislation 
seeks to change.
  There is no free pass here for these plants. They will still be 
measured and they will still have to comply, but this is a 
customization to something that is achievable, and it is a 
customization that I would argue is what the EPA should have been doing 
all along.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael F. Doyle).
  Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to my friend from Pennsylvania that 
I agree with a lot of what he said as far as the value of these coal 
refuse sites. No one is debating that. Certainly I am not. This is 
almost a Pennsylvania exclusive piece of legislation given the fact 
that 14 of the 19 sites are in our State, and I believe about five of 
those can comply at this point.
  The problem I have with the gentleman's proposal is that when one 
takes emission credits and gives them to the coal refuse plants in 
excess of what they get, it is coming out of somebody else's 
allocation. In western Pennsylvania, where we are both from, most of 
our electricity is from coal-fired utilities. What one is doing, in 
effect, is taking those emission credits from other coal-fired 
utilities to give them to this small number of coal refuse plants, and 
that is going to cost others' margins on those utility sites. It will 
affect their margins because now they have to work harder to clean up 
their emissions because they don't have these credits because they have 
gone to the coal refuse plants. That is a big problem I see, especially 
in a State like ours that still has a lot of coal-fired electricity 
generation.
  I think there are better ways forward. I think we would be better 
served in our State to push our State legislature and the Governor's 
office, too, to come up with a State implementation plan that allows 
for some flexibility and takes into account what goes on at these 
plants, because this is primarily a Pennsylvania issue. As I said in my 
remarks before, there are other ways, I think, to solve this problem.
  Look, the President has issued a SAP. He is going to veto this bill. 
So this piece of legislation isn't going to become law. Yet I am not 
standing here to say that I think we should stop our efforts to do 
something to keep this resource, because it is cleaning up a lot of 
sites in Pennsylvania, and there is a benefit to the environment. There 
is a lot of water pollution potential for leaving these sites as they 
are.
  I want to work with the gentleman, and I say to him that, while this 
piece of legislation may not ever become law, I extend my offer to work 
with the gentleman in constructive ways, both with our Governor and 
State legislature, and in alternative ways to attack this problem that 
doesn't take emission credits from other coal-fired utilities in our 
State.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), the author of the 
legislation.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, it would be great for Pennsylvania to come 
up with a customization on its own, but that would take a couple of 
years for approval from the EPA. In the meantime, these plants will be 
closed.
  Few, if any, conventional coal plant owners have expressed concerns 
about the SENSE Act. Bear in mind, we are talking about an overall 
allocation for SO2 and a reconfiguring within that overall 
allocation. So there is not going to be an increase in SO2; 
it will be a mere customization and allocation, and it should have been 
done and should have been allowed by the EPA.
  While the President may have issued a veto threat, my hope is, before 
the President would follow through on such a veto threat, that he would 
come to western Pennsylvania, that he would walk the hills with me, 
that he would see the streams that have come back to life, that he 
would talk to Tim and talk to Bill and talk to the men and women at 
these plants who are taking care of their families, so they can say, 
``Mr. President, we need some help here. Our communities have been 
economically distressed. We are sustaining our communities with these 
jobs. We are raising our kids with these jobs. What we don't like, Mr. 
President, are these one-size-fits-all edicts coming out of Washington, 
D.C., that give our States and communities the burden of complying--
totally excluding the benefits that have been happening on the 
ground.''
  Again, to see these places that have been reclaimed is remarkable. It 
is my hope that the President would visit those places before he 
follows through on any kind of veto threat.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael F. Doyle).
  Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. I will not consume any more 
time after this. I don't want to play Chip and Dale with the gentleman 
all day.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say that our President has been to 
Pittsburgh probably more than to any city in the country, and I have 
been with him many times when he has been there. I have walked on these 
sites, too. I have one up in Harmar Township. I have seen them. I know 
what the gentleman is talking about, and I think it is a problem we 
need to address. The SENSE Act is really a one-size-fits-all kind of 
solution, not current law. Current law gives States flexibility, and I 
think that is what is important.
  I would just say to my friend that this is a real problem and a real 
concern in our home State, and I reiterate my willingness to work with 
him on a solution.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, there are no additional speakers on my 
side of the aisle.
  I reserve the balance of my time to close.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, I include in the Record the Statement of 
Administration Policy.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


 h.r. 3797--satisfying energy needs and saving the environment (sense) 
              act--rep. rothfus, r-pa, and six cosponsors

       The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3797, which would 
     threaten the health of Americans by requiring changes to the 
     Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Cross-State Air 
     Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and the Mercury and Air Toxics 
     Standards (MATS) for electric generating units (EGUs) that 
     use coal refuse as their main fuel source. Specifically, H.R. 
     3797 would restrict the market-based approach currently used 
     to allocate sulfur dioxide emission allowances issued under 
     the CSAPR, thereby raising the costs of achieving the 
     pollution reduction required by the rule. The bill also would 
     undermine the emissions limits for hazardous acid gases from 
     those established under the MATS, leading to increased health 
     and environmental impacts from increased emissions of 
     hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, other harmful acid 
     gases, and sulfur dioxide.
       CSAPR and MATS protect the health of millions of Americans 
     by requiring the reduction of harmful power plant emissions, 
     including air toxics and emissions that contribute to smog 
     and fine particle pollution. The pollution reductions from 
     CSAPR and MATS will prevent thousands of premature deaths, 
     asthma attacks, and heart attacks. An important feature of 
     the CSAPR is its trading program which allows power plants to 
     meet emission budgets in different ways, including by trading 
     emissions allowances between emission sources within a State 
     and some trading across States. This market-based approach 
     reduces the cost of compliance while ensuring reductions in 
     air pollution for citizens across the CSAPR region.
       H.R. 3797 would create an uneven playing field by picking 
     winners and losers in CSAPR compliance. The bill establishes 
     a special market of CSAPR allowances for EGUs that burn coal 
     refuse and prohibits the trading of allowances allocated to 
     coal refuse EGUs, which would interfere with and manipulate 
     market conditions. By doing so, H.R. 3797 would: (1) 
     economically advantage coal refuse EGUs over other EGUs by 
     giving them allowances that would otherwise have been 
     allocated to others; (2) reduce compliance choices for other 
     State units; and (3) distort the economic incentives of coal 
     refuse EGUs to reduce emissions. Further, the allowances 
     allocated to coal refuse EGUs would be unavailable for use by 
     any other sources, resulting, in the aggregate, in less 
     efficient and more costly CSAPR compliance. Additionally, 
     H.R. 3797 would interfere with existing opportunities under 
     the CSAPR for each State to control the allocation of 
     allowances among its EGUs.
       If the President were presented with H.R. 3797, his senior 
     advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

  Mr. PALLONE. The sponsor of the legislation mentioned the President's

[[Page H1370]]

coming to visit, but I think if you look at the Statement of 
Administration Policy, it is quite clear that what the President is 
essentially saying is that he doesn't want the Congress to pick the 
winners and the losers. He wants the States--in this case, 
Pennsylvania--to have the flexibility to make their own decisions.
  It is not a question of what the President decides. It is clear that 
he is vetoing this legislation or would veto this legislation because 
he thinks that the flexibility is already there under the law and that 
the States should make those decisions rather than having Congress pick 
the winners and losers.
  I am not going to read the whole thing, Mr. Chairman, but I did want 
to just read the section that relates to that, if I could, from the 
Statement of Administration Policy.
  It reads:
  ``H.R. 3797 would create an uneven playing field by picking winners 
and losers in CSAPR compliance. The bill establishes a special market 
of CSAPR allowances for EGUs that burn coal refuse and prohibits the 
trading of allowances allocated to coal refuse EGUs, which would 
interfere with and manipulate market conditions. By doing so, H.R. 3797 
would: (1) economically advantage coal refuse EGUs over other EGUs by 
giving them allowances that would otherwise have been allocated to 
others; (2) reduce compliance choices for other State units; and (3) 
distort the economic incentives of coal refuse EGUs to reduce 
emissions. Further, the allowances allocated to coal refuse EGUs would 
be unavailable for use by any other sources, resulting, in the 
aggregate, in less efficient and more costly CSAPR compliance. 
Additionally, H.R. 3797 would interfere with existing opportunities 
under the CSAPR for each State to control the allocation of allowances 
among its EGUs.''
  Again, I think the Statement of Administration Policy is based on the 
idea that there is flexibility under the law and that States are in the 
best positions to make these decisions. I think it is quite clear, and 
I agree with everything that is in this veto message as being the basis 
for why we oppose the legislation; so I urge my colleagues to oppose 
the bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I would just reiterate, once again, far from undercutting States, the 
SENSE Act offers the best solution for States. The EPA, in these two 
regulations, is dictating to the States what can and cannot be done. 
Even if the States wanted to take additional action, they would have to 
meet the requirements of those regulations. The SENSE Act makes minor 
modifications to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and to the Mercury 
and Air Toxics Standards, and it does not raise the cap of the 
emissions.
  I have a great deal of respect for both of the gentlemen on the other 
side of the aisle who have different views on this subject; but I can 
tell you the generating plants that are burning coal to produce 
electricity have not talked to us at all about being concerned about 
the SENSE Act. They are overwhelmingly concerned about the clean energy 
plan, which is basically going to change every aspect of the way they 
do business if the courts do not rule it in violation of the Clean Air 
Act.
  In closing, as a Member of Congress and as Congresspeople, we do have 
the responsibility to step in and change some parts of the Clean Air 
Act if we view it as being in the best interest of the American people. 
Because these coal refuse plants have already cleaned up, recycled, 
over 200 million tons of coal refuse by combusting it to produce 
electricity and because the overall caps are not going to be raised, 
there are going to be minor modifications, we are going to continue to 
clean up these refuse piles. We are going to continue to protect 1,200 
direct jobs, 4,000 indirect jobs, $84 million in payroll.
  It seems to me that the benefits far outweigh the negative aspects of 
this legislation. For that reason, I would respectfully request my 
colleagues to support H.R. 3797 and pass this legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of legislation that's 
important to my part of Pennsylvania, and to all of the coal-producing 
regions of this country.
  The SENSE Act, offered by my colleague from western Pennsylvania, Mr. 
Rothfus.
  This bill is a long time coming.
  In my part of the country, we are familiar with ``coal refuse''--a 
mixture of low-quality coal, rock, and dirt, which is left behind after 
mining.
  This coal refuse has a much lower energy content, and for years it 
could not be processed efficiently or economically.
  As a result, piles of it were left behind, which led to a variety of 
detrimental results: loss of vegetation and wildlife, and concentrated 
levels of acid drainage into local streams and ponds.
  But the technology has advanced, and we can now reclaim that waste--
the private sector can use the coal waste product to burn and generate 
electricity.
  What's left over after that can be used to restore the natural 
landscape, or refill abandoned mines.
  But, once again, the Environmental Protection Agency couldn't stand 
this type of progress.
  They came up with the MATS Rule--the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards 
rule.
  This sets certain unattainable levels for the industry.
  The SENSE Act provides relief from these unrealistic limits.
  It seeks to establish an alternative compliance standard for coal 
refuse facilities based upon the removal and control of Sulfur Dioxide.
  Now, in some parts of the country, and in some speeches on the 
campaign trail, it has become fashionable to attack the coal industry, 
and make its people out to be the bad guys.
  As a candidate, our current president promised to bankrupt the coal 
industry.
  And he has made a tremendous effort to do just that--including this 
MATS Rule from his EPA.
  Just in the last few days, the frontrunner on the Democratic side 
promised that as president, she would put coal mines and coal miners 
out of work.
  Now, all of that might sound pretty good in certain focus groups, or 
around the cocktail party circuit, but let me tell you . . . where I 
come from, it sounds pretty devastating.
  The coal industry--in no small part--helped build this country and 
make it a world leader.
  It generates cheap electricity for millions of people.
  And for many tens of thousands of people back home in Pennsylvania, 
it still provides a good living, and it puts food on the table.
  This bill makes sense--common sense.
  It provides a use for coal refuse, generates electricity, and 
protects jobs.
  And it will allow us to reclaim land previously mined, which means it 
has a positive impact on the environment.
  And when that land is reclaimed, it can again be put to use, and 
placed back on the tax rolls, making it good for local government.
  I urge support for the SENSE Act.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chair, today we have another opportunity to say yes to 
energy and protect jobs with H.R. 3797, the SENSE Act. This sensible 
bill will help coal refuse-to-energy facilities continue their work 
producing energy while addressing the nation's coal refuse problem.
  Vast mounds of coal refuse sit near many abandoned coal mines 
throughout coal country, and they pose a serious threat to air and 
water quality as well as to public safety. But through American 
ingenuity, coal refuse-to-energy plants have been developed that 
actually use this harmful waste product to generate electricity. The 
end product is ash, which is environmentally safe and used to reclaim 
the land.
  There are 19 such plants in operation today that are producing energy 
and jobs while providing a practical solution to the coal refuse 
problem that would otherwise cost billions of dollars to address.
  Unfortunately, there are two EPA rules targeting all coal-fired power 
plants that are causing some problems. Coal refuse-to-electricity 
plants are very different than conventional coal-fired plants and may 
not be able to meet these EPA rules which are geared toward the 
conventional plants. As a result, the future of these facilities and 
their environmental and economic benefits is now in danger.
  Thankfully, Mr. Rothfus of Pennsylvania has spearheaded a solution. 
The SENSE Act still requires coal refuse-energy-plants to reduce their 
emissions, but creates new compliance methods more appropriate for this 
technology. This would allow these plants to continue operating, to the 
great benefit to the communities where these facilities are located.
  The SENSE Act is about as commonsense as they get. I urge all my 
colleagues to support this pro-energy, pro-jobs, and strongly pro-
environment bill.

                              {time}  1500

  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.

[[Page H1371]]

  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. 3797

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Satisfying Energy Needs and 
     Saving the Environment Act'' or the ``SENSE Act''.

     SEC. 2. STANDARDS FOR COAL REFUSE POWER PLANTS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this Act:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (2) Boiler operating day.--The term ``boiler operating 
     day'' has the meaning given such term in section 63.10042 of 
     title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor 
     regulation.
       (3) Coal refuse.--The term ``coal refuse'' means any 
     byproduct of coal mining, physical coal cleaning, or coal 
     preparation operation that contains coal, matrix material, 
     clay, and other organic and inorganic material.
       (4) Coal refuse electric utility steam generating unit.--
     The term ``coal refuse electric utility steam generating 
     unit'' means an electric utility steam generating unit that--
       (A) is in operation as of the date of enactment of this 
     Act;
       (B) uses fluidized bed combustion technology to convert 
     coal refuse into energy; and
       (C) uses coal refuse as at least 75 percent of the annual 
     fuel consumed, by heat input, of the unit.
       (5) Coal refuse-fired facility.--The term ``coal refuse-
     fired facility'' means all coal refuse electric utility steam 
     generating units that are--
       (A) located on one or more contiguous or adjacent 
     properties;
       (B) specified within the same Major Group (2-digit code), 
     as described in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual 
     (1987); and
       (C) under common control of the same person (or persons 
     under common control).
       (6) Cross-state air pollution rule.--The terms ``Cross-
     State Air Pollution Rule'' and ``CSAPR'' mean the regulatory 
     program promulgated by the Administrator to address the 
     interstate transport of air pollution in parts 51, 52, and 97 
     of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, including any 
     subsequent or successor regulation.
       (7) Electric utility steam generating unit.--The term 
     ``electric utility steam generating unit'' means either or 
     both--
       (A) an electric utility steam generating unit, as such term 
     is defined in section 63.10042 of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, or any successor regulation; or
       (B) an electricity generating unit or electric generating 
     unit, as such terms are used in CSAPR.
       (8) Phase i.--The term ``Phase I'' means, with respect to 
     CSAPR, the initial compliance period under CSAPR, identified 
     for the 2015 and 2016 annual compliance periods.
       (b) Application of CSAPR to Certain Coal Refuse Electric 
     Utility Steam Generating Units.--
       (1) Coal refuse electric utility steam generating units 
     combusting bituminous coal refuse.--
       (A) Applicability.--This paragraph applies with respect to 
     any coal refuse electric utility steam generating unit that--
       (i) combusts coal refuse derived from the mining and 
     processing of bituminous coal; and
       (ii) is subject to sulfur dioxide allowance surrender 
     provisions pursuant to CSAPR.
       (B) Continued applicability of phase i allowance 
     allocations.--In carrying out CSAPR, the Administrator shall 
     provide that, for any compliance period, the allocation 
     (whether through a Federal implementation plan or State 
     implementation plan) of sulfur dioxide allowances for a coal 
     refuse electric utility steam generating unit described in 
     subparagraph (A) is equivalent to the allocation of the unit-
     specific sulfur dioxide allowance allocation identified for 
     such unit for Phase I, as referenced in the notice entitled 
     ``Availability of Data on Allocations of Cross-State Air 
     Pollution Rule Allowances to Existing Electricity Generating 
     Units'' (79 Fed. Reg. 71674 (December 3, 2014)).
       (C) Rules for allowance allocations.--For any compliance 
     period under CSAPR that commences on or after January 1, 
     2017, any sulfur dioxide allowance allocation provided by the 
     Administrator to a coal refuse electric utility steam 
     generating unit described in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) shall not be transferable for use by any other source 
     not located at the same coal refuse-fired facility as the 
     relevant coal refuse electric utility steam generating unit;
       (ii) may be transferable for use by another source located 
     at the same coal refuse-fired facility as the relevant coal 
     refuse electric utility steam generating unit;
       (iii) may be banked for application to compliance 
     obligations in future compliance periods under CSAPR; and
       (iv) shall be surrendered upon the permanent cessation of 
     operation of such coal refuse electric utility steam 
     generating unit.
       (2) Other sources.--
       (A) No increase in overall state budget of sulfur dioxide 
     allowance allocations.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the 
     Administrator may not, for any compliance period under CSAPR, 
     increase the total budget of sulfur dioxide allowance 
     allocations for a State in which a unit described in 
     paragraph (1)(A) is located.
       (B) Compliance periods 2017 through 2020.--For any 
     compliance period under CSAPR that commences on or after 
     January 1, 2017, but before December 31, 2020, the 
     Administrator shall carry out subparagraph (A) by 
     proportionally reducing, as necessary, the unit-specific 
     sulfur dioxide allowance allocations from each source that--
       (i) is located in a State in which a unit described in 
     paragraph (1)(A) is located;
       (ii) permanently ceases operation, or converts its primary 
     fuel source from coal to natural gas, prior to the relevant 
     compliance period; and
       (iii) otherwise receives an allocation of sulfur dioxide 
     allowances under CSAPR for such period.
       (c) Emission Limitations To Address Hydrogen Chloride and 
     Sulfur Dioxide as Hazardous Air Pollutants.--
       (1) Applicability.--For purposes of regulating emissions of 
     hydrogen chloride or sulfur dioxide from a coal refuse 
     electric utility steam generating unit under section 112 of 
     the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412), the Administrator--
       (A) shall authorize the operator of such unit to elect that 
     such unit comply with either--
       (i) an emissions standard for emissions of hydrogen 
     chloride that meets the requirements of paragraph (2); or
       (ii) an emission standard for emissions of sulfur dioxide 
     that meets the requirements of paragraph (2); and
       (B) may not require that such unit comply with both an 
     emission standard for emissions of hydrogen chloride and an 
     emission standard for emissions of sulfur dioxide.
       (2) Rules for emission limitations.--
       (A) In general.--The Administrator shall require an 
     operator of a coal refuse electric utility steam generating 
     unit to comply, at the election of the operator, with no more 
     than one of the following emission standards:
       (i) An emission standard for emissions of hydrogen chloride 
     from such unit that is no more stringent than an emission 
     rate of 0.002 pounds per million British thermal units of 
     heat input.
       (ii) An emission standard for emissions of hydrogen 
     chloride from such unit that is no more stringent than an 
     emission rate of 0.02 pounds per megawatt-hour.
       (iii) An emission standard for emissions of sulfur dioxide 
     from such unit that is no more stringent than an emission 
     rate of 0.20 pounds per million British thermal units of heat 
     input.
       (iv) An emission standard for emissions of sulfur dioxide 
     from such unit that is no more stringent than an emission 
     rate of 1.5 pounds per megawatt-hour.
       (v) An emission standard for emissions of sulfur dioxide 
     from such unit that is no more stringent than capture and 
     control of 93 percent of sulfur dioxide across the generating 
     unit or group of generating units, as determined by 
     comparing--

       (I) the expected sulfur dioxide generated from combustion 
     of fuels emissions calculated based upon as-fired fuel 
     samples; to
       (II) the actual sulfur dioxide emissions as measured by a 
     sulfur dioxide continuous emission monitoring system.

       (B) Measurement.--An emission standard described in 
     subparagraph (A) shall be measured as a 30 boiler operating 
     day rolling average per coal refuse electric utility steam 
     generating unit or group of coal refuse electric utility 
     steam generating units located at a single coal refuse-fired 
     facility.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those 
printed in part B of House Report 114-453. 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. Pallone

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part B of House Report 114-453.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I offer my amendment.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike sections 2(a)(6), 2(a)(8), and 2(b) and redesignate 
     accordingly.
       Amend section 2(a)(7) to read as follows:
       (7) Electric utility steam generating unit.--The term 
     ``electric utility steam generating unit'' means an electric 
     utility steam generating unit, as such term is defined in 
     section 63.10042 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, or 
     any successor regulation.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 640, the gentleman from New

[[Page H1372]]

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.
  This is a targeted amendment that strikes section 2(b) from the bill. 
This section deals with EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, also 
known as CSAPR. This is one of the most important Clean Air Act rules 
in recent years. It protects the health of millions of Americans by 
requiring upwind States in the eastern and central United States to 
reduce power plant emissions that cause air quality problems in 
downward States.
  As I have mentioned before during general debate, an important 
feature of CSAPR is the trading program that allows sources in each 
State to meet emission budgets in many different ways, including 
trading of emission allowances. This approach reduces the overall cost 
of compliance, while ensuring reduction in air pollution.
  I mentioned previously during general debate that the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce held a legislative hearing on this bill on February 
3. At that hearing, the EPA and John Walke from the Natural Resources 
Defense Council provided testimony that described a number of policy 
and technical issues with this section of the bill, and I just want to 
touch on a few of them now.
  First, by allocating emission allowances to waste coal units that 
cannot be traded, the SENSE Act would eliminate economic incentives to 
reduce toxic air pollution at these waste coal units.
  Second, by reallocating allowances from other sources within the 
State to waste coal units and then limiting the ability to transfer or 
trade these additional allowances to other facilities, the bill would 
choose winners--that is, the waste coal plants--and losers--that is, 
all other coal plants in a given State.
  Third, by interfering with the conditions of the CSAPR market, 
compliance costs would increase for covered facilities.
  Now, the SENSE Act would also remove a State's right to determine the 
appropriate method of compliance with CSAPR. To be more specific, 
currently, under the Clean Air Act, an individual State may choose to 
reduce emissions from power plants based on EPA's CSAPR framework, or 
they can choose to comply with the rule by reducing emissions based on 
a framework the State develops and the EPA approves.
  One of the most egregious aspects of the bill's CSAPR provision--and 
it is one that I am surprised my Republican colleagues would support--
is that, if the bill were to become law, it would actually take this 
power away from the States and give it to the EPA. Or, to put it 
another way, the SENSE Act would wrest control away from States to make 
these basic decisions for the first time in the 39-year history of the 
Clean Air Act's interstate air pollution program.
  EPA also pointed out that the SENSE Act would deny States control 
over allocations of allowances by rendering any submitted State plan 
with a different allocation to these units unapprovable. So why 
supporters of this bill would want to change a successful EPA program 
to make it less flexible and more costly is beyond me. The CSAPR 
provisions of the bill make unnecessary changes to the rule since 
States already have the power to help out waste coal plants if they 
want to.
  So, again, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
amendment to strike the CSAPR portion of this SENSE Act.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not warranted because 
any change in a State's compliance cost will be very low. There are 
only 19 coal refuse-to-energy facilities in the United States, mostly 
small, under 100 megawatts, and only a subset will avail themselves of 
the bill's provisions. We are only talking about four States: West 
Virginia, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Montana.
  The bill merely reallocates emission allowances under the Cross-State 
Air Pollution Rule from other plants to coal refuse-to-energy 
facilities. This will help ensure the continued operation of these 
plants but is unlikely to have much of a cost impact.
  As was stated in an earlier debate, this bill does what the EPA 
should have done. It creates provisions that are realistic and 
achievable for coal refuse-to-energy facilities. Both the Clean Air Act 
and the EPA regulations promulgated under it routinely divide regulated 
entities into separate categories that are treated differently based on 
their unique characteristics.
  Coal refuse-to-energy facilities have many such unique 
characteristics and should have been treated as a separate category in 
EPA rulemakings. It was discretionary for them not to, the Court held, 
but that doesn't mean they should not have. And it is the policymaking 
branch of this government, this Congress, this Article I branch, where 
the people should have a say in how they are governed. They were not 
accommodated in the EPA rulemakings, and the SENSE Act addresses that 
omission.
  Any modest costs, Mr. Chairman, are more than offset by the jobs, 
energy, and especially the environmental benefits of keeping the coal 
refuse-to-energy fleet in operation. States' environmental regulators 
estimate the cost of addressing coal refuse to be approximately $2 
billion in Pennsylvania alone, and that is just for cleanup.
  When one of these coal piles catch fire and the damage that is done--
and when they are on fire, there is no control, Mr. Chairman. There is 
no control. Nothing is being eliminated as these waste coal piles burn. 
When the waste coal is being used by the energy industry in these 
plants, there are controls in place.
  Finally, with respect to giving States flexibility, everything has to 
be approved by the EPA, Mr. Chairman. That is illusory. It could take 2 
years for the EPA to approve a State plan. In the meantime, the plants 
close, the progress stops, and the people lose their jobs.
  I would urge a vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the 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. 2 Offered by Mr. Pallone

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
part B of House Report 114-453.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Engel), I offer amendment No. 2.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, after line 23, insert the following new paragraph:
       (3) Applicability.--This subsection shall not apply with 
     respect to a State if the Governor of the State, or the head 
     of the authority that implements CSAPR for the State, makes a 
     determination, and notifies the Administrator, that 
     implementation of this subsection will increase the State's 
     overall compliance costs for CSAPR.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 640, 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.
  Last month, the Energy and Power Subcommittee held a hearing that 
identified numerous flaws in the SENSE Act, and this amendment is 
designed to correct two of them.
  If the SENSE Act were to become law, waste coal facilities would be 
able to emit more than their fair share of pollution under the Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule, known as CSAPR. Specifically, section 2(b) of 
the SENSE Act

[[Page H1373]]

would reserve emission credits for waste coal plants, thereby 
prohibiting them from being traded under the CSAPR trading system.
  According to Janet McCabe, the Acting Assistant Administrator for the 
Office of Air and Radiation at EPA, this would remove the economic 
incentives to reduce emissions and ultimately increase the cost of 
compliance. Section 2(b) would also interfere with the State's right to 
determine how to best comply with the rule, instead putting those 
decisions in the hands of the EPA Administrator. Not only are these 
changes harmful, but they are also unnecessary because the State that 
wishes to give a break to waste coal units can already do so under the 
rule.
  So this bill, as written, would take longstanding State authority, 
transfer it to the Federal Government, and then use that authority to 
pick winners and losers; and it does all of this while increasing the 
cost of compliance. This amendment would allow a State to opt out of 
section 2(b) of the SENSE Act if it determines that implementation of 
the subsection would increase the State's overall compliance cost.
  I urge my colleagues to protect the integrity of the CSAPR rule and 
support this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that what we are 
looking at here is that the SENSE Act seeks to accomplish what the EPA 
should have done in creating special categories.
  Again, if you are looking at compliance costs, any costs are going to 
be low. And then when you combine that with the requirement to seek EPA 
approval and the delays that that would incur, these plants will be 
closed, the environmental progress will stop, and challenged 
communities will be further challenged.
  These are solid, good-paying, family-sustaining jobs in these plants. 
We know that while some plants are in compliance, others are not.
  So, again, this SENSE Act seeks to do what the EPA should have done 
from the very beginning and create appropriate categorization.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the underlying 
bill but in support of the Engel amendment. It is perfect, good sense 
giving the Governor of a State the ability to opt out of the section of 
the bill that modifies the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule if the 
Governor determines that implementing those provisions would increase 
the overall cost of complying with the rule.
  There goes, if you will, the underlying problem of this bill. There 
has been no determination as to the burden of this particular bill, and 
I oppose it.
  I oppose it in particular because the bill would undermine the 
emissions limits for hazardous acid gasses from those established under 
the MATS, leading to increased health and environmental impacts from 
increased emissions of hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, and other 
harmful acid gasses and sulfur dioxide.
  Specifically, the CSAPR and MATS protect the health of millions of 
Americans by requiring the reduction of harmful power plant emissions, 
including the air toxics and emissions that contribute to smog and fine 
particle pollution. The pollution reduction from CSAPR and MATS have 
real-life impacts: prevention of thousands of premature deaths, 
asthmatic attacks, and heart attacks.
  I would offer to say, as a member of the Homeland Security Committee, 
we are always dealing with toxics as it relates to chemical plants and 
protecting the homeland in the area of security, but we also need to 
protect them in the area of good quality health care.
  I would argue that this bill would economically advantage coal refuse 
EGUs over other EGUs, reduce compliance choices for other State units, 
and distort the economic incentives of coal refuse EGUs to reduce 
emissions. Also, the allowances allocated to coal refuse EGUs would be 
unavailable for use by any other sources.
  I ask my colleagues to oppose this legislation. I don't believe that 
this bill will be considered in the Senate. I don't believe that it 
will be considered for signature by the White House.
  I would offer to say that, besides the budget and the appropriations 
process that is ongoing, we in this Congress need to deal with the 
restoration of the Voting Rights Act and provide for section 5. Let's 
get to work on things impacting the American people, creating more 
jobs, as opposed to providing poor quality of life, poor quality of air 
for our citizens throughout this Nation.
  Once again, I support the Engel amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3797--Satisfying 
Energy Needs and Saving the Environment (SENSE) Act.
  I oppose this unwise and unnecessary legislation for several reasons.
  H.R. 3797, would threaten the health of Americans by requiring 
changes to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Cross-State Air 
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) 
for electric generating units (EGUs) that use coal refuse as their main 
fuel source.
  In doing this, H.R. 3797 would restrict the market-based approach 
currently used to allocate sulfur dioxide emission allowances issued 
under the CSAPR, thereby raising the costs of achieving the pollution 
reduction required by the rule.
  This bill also would undermine the emissions limits for hazardous 
acid gases from those established under the MATS, leading to increased 
health and environmental impacts from increased emissions of hydrogen 
chloride, hydrogen fluoride, other harmful acid gases, and sulfur 
dioxide.
  Specifically, CSAPR and MATS protect the health of millions of 
Americans by requiring the reduction of harmful power plant emissions, 
including air toxics and emissions that contribute to smog and fine 
particle pollution.
  The pollution reductions from CSAPR and MATS have real life impacts: 
prevention of thousands of premature deaths, asthma attacks, and heart 
attacks.
  Let me also underscore that an important feature of the CSAPR is its 
trading program which allows power plants to meet emission budgets in 
different ways, including by trading emissions allowances between 
emission sources within a State and some trading across States.
  This market-based approach reduces the cost of compliance while 
ensuring reductions in air pollution for citizens across the CSAPR 
region.
  I oppose H.R. 3797 because it would create an uneven playing field by 
picking winners and losers in CSAPR compliance.
  Indeed, this bill establishes a special market of CSAPR allowances 
for EGUs that burn coal refuse and prohibits the trading of allowances 
allocated to coal refuse EGUs, which would interfere with and 
manipulate market conditions.
  Specifically, H.R. 3797 would: economically advantage coal refuse 
EGUs over other EGUs by giving them allowances that would otherwise 
have been allocated to others; reduce compliance choices for other 
State units; and distort the economic incentives of coal refuse EGUs to 
reduce emissions.
  Also, the allowances allocated to coal refuse EGUs would be 
unavailable for use by any other sources.
  This will result in the aggregate, in less efficient and more costly 
CSAPR compliance.
  Finally, I oppose H.R. 3797 because it would interfere with existing 
opportunities under the CSAPR for each State to control the allocation 
of allowances among its EGUs.
  Instead of wasting time supporting this bill, I urge my colleagues to 
join me in focusing on more important issues affecting our nation: more 
jobs for Americans in the energy and other sectors, energy security and 
independence and utilization of innovation in energy to solve some of 
the contemporary issues we face in our country.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I would just respond to the gentlewoman 
from Texas. She mentioned the word ``burdensome.'' What is really 
burdensome is the way that these rules are being applied. When the EPA 
had a chance to do a customized approach, they chose not to.

[[Page H1374]]

  Why is it burdensome? It is burdensome because there are plants that 
will not be able to comply, which means the environmental progress that 
we have seen will stop, which means that their jobs will be lost.
  I do note that there is bipartisan support for this initiative. Both 
Senators Casey and Toomey, on the other side of this Capitol, from the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania--one a Republican, one a Democrat--
recognize the practicality of this approach. They recognize that the 
legislation makes sense.
  For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.
  The underlying bill is another unnecessary special interest bill that 
undermines Clean Air Act regulations. The bill, if it were to reach the 
President's desk, will be vetoed.
  We should be using our time to move forward with the many other 
issues that need to be addressed in this Congress. Our water 
infrastructure is in dire need of repair and maintenance. We have 
Superfund and brownfield sites that need to be cleaned up and returned 
to productive use. States need support for modernizing and hardening 
the electricity grid, and there are still many Americans who are 
unemployed or underpaid for the work that they are doing. All of these 
things, especially the infrastructure issues, must be addressed by 
Congress. They impact every person, every State, and every industry in 
the country.
  Instead of wasting time on bills like the SENSE Act, we should get to 
work on these important issues that will support economic growth and 
job creation throughout the country.
  Mr. Chairman, 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 Mr. Bera

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
part B of House Report 114-453.
  Mr. BERA. 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 11, after line 17, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 3. GAO REPORT.

       Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall issue 
     a report detailing the increase in emissions of sulfur 
     dioxide and other air pollutants that will result from 
     implementation of this Act and the effect of such emissions 
     on public health.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 640, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Bera) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BERA. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It would require the 
Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan government watchdog, to 
complete a report on the impact this legislation would have on public 
health.
  I look at this from the perspective of a doctor and public health 
expert, and one of my guiding principles as a doctor is to make sure we 
protect the public health.
  Coal refuse plants not only increase the amount of pollution in our 
air, they also use a power source which is less efficient than normal 
coal and contains higher levels of mercury. Exposure to sulfur dioxide 
and other pollutants such as mercury have been known to increase risks 
of cardiovascular disease and respiratory illnesses, including 
aggravated asthma, bronchitis, and heart attacks.
  My amendment would require the GAO to investigate whether this 
legislation would increase emissions of sulfur dioxide and other 
pollutants.
  I strongly believe the EPA plays an important role in protecting the 
health of our families and our environment from dangerous pollutants. 
While we should be mindful about the impact of regulations on our 
economy, we have a responsibility to address urgent threats to the 
planet, such as climate change, and we have a responsibility to make 
sure legislation that is being passed protects our public health.
  This legislation before us today would hamper the EPA's ability to 
limit dangerous pollution and protect public health, and it will also 
slow down our transition to clean energy. That is why I introduced my 
amendment today, to ensure that we know the true impact this bill would 
have on public health and on our environment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to this 
amendment. This amendment would require a GAO report detailing an 
increase, if any, in sulfur dioxide and other emissions and the effect 
of implementing the legislation on public health.
  Now, this legislation has come about because of two EPA rules--the 
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards 
rule--and I might say that the SENSE Act does not change in any way the 
caps on the sulfur dioxide. That would basically remain the same. Coal 
refuse-to-energy plants are negligible emitters of mercury. In fact, 
EPA testified that by closing down the coal refuse plants, there would 
not be any significant benefit on the mercury side. All of the benefits 
come from the reduction in fine particulate matter, and we are not 
addressing that.
  I would point out once again that 214 million tons of this refuse 
have already been cleaned up. If we allow these regulations to go into 
effect and these plants close down, those refuse piles will not be 
cleaned up, 1,200 people will lose their jobs, 4,000 indirect people 
will lose their jobs, and $84 million in payroll will be lost.
  EPA has admitted that there is no significant environmental benefit, 
and they had the opportunity to set up a special category for these 
coal refuse plants, all of which are less than 100-megawatt plants. 
They are very small. There are only 19 in the country, 14 in one State.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania and others from Pennsylvania have 
asked Congress to intervene to help them on this matter. For that 
reason, I would respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment and ask 
that the amendment be defeated.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BERA. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment. It is a no-nonsense amendment that will allow us to know the 
impact on public health.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Bera).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BERA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California will be 
postponed.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Peters

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in 
part B of House Report 114-453.
  Mr. PETERS. 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 11, after line 17, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 3. PUBLIC NOTICE.

       Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Administrator shall give notice of the anticipated 
     effects of this Act on air quality to all States, 
     municipalities, towns, tribal governments, or other 
     governmental entities in areas that--
       (1) include or are adjacent to a coal refuse electric 
     utility steam generating unit to which this Act applies; or
       (2) are likely to be affected by air emissions from such a 
     unit.


[[Page H1375]]


  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 640, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Peters) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, the existing Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 
set new standards for the emission of sulfur dioxide based on public 
health risks.
  Under this rule, States can choose to comply by adapting new 
technologies or employing cleaner energy sources. Today's bill would 
raise the acceptable levels threshold for sulfur dioxide emissions from 
one source, coal waste plants, allowing them to pour more of these 
pollutants into our air.
  It props up coal waste plants, thereby undermining flexibility for 
States to meet public health targets. It also distorts the ability of 
the market to determine which energy sources are most sustainable, cost 
effective, and meet the public's need.
  The underlying bill would pick winners and losers by favoring waste 
coal-burning power plants at the expense of other power sources. If 
coal waste plants can adapt and reduce their emissions to help States 
meet these targets, then they should do so; but short of that, the 
market is determining that there are more efficient ways to produce 
energy.
  Congress should not subsidize any energy source that does not compete 
with innovative and cleaner options that also better protect our 
children's health; but if this bill is going to raise these limits and 
allow more pollutants to be emitted, we should be honest with the 
communities that will be affected. My amendment requires the EPA to 
inform the general public and municipalities adjacent to waste coal 
plants about the anticipated effects of this bill on air quality not 
later than 90 days after its enactment.
  According to the American Lung Association, sulfur dioxide can cause 
breathing problems, exacerbate asthma symptoms, and reduce lung 
function. Exposure to sulfur dioxide has been connected to an increased 
risk of hospital admissions, especially among children, seniors, and 
people with asthma. This puts families' health at risk in the 
communities downwind and nearby.
  Last month I visited Flint, Michigan, with my colleagues, where we 
saw the devastating effects of keeping the public in the dark.
  Americans have a right to know how this legislation is going to 
affect the quality of the air they breathe.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, if we could take a look at this amendment, 
this amendment would require the EPA Administrator to notify affected 
States and localities of any anticipated effects of the legislation on 
air quality.
  The issue is the SENSE Act prohibits any increase in covered 
emissions, so any impact on air quality will be very limited. The SENSE 
Act mandates that sulfur dioxide emissions stay within the EPA-approved 
caps so there can be no increase above approved levels.
  Coal refuse-to-energy plants are negligible emitters of mercury, and 
the bill requires emissions reductions of hydrogen chloride and other 
compounds only at a rate achievable for this type of facility.
  The proposed amendment is one-sided, as it ignores the air and water 
quality benefits from reducing the coal refuse problem, including 
reducing the risk of heavily polluting coal refuse fires that can 
affect many State and local governments. For example, this amendment 
would not require the EPA Administrator to notify affected communities 
of what happens when a coal refuse pile catches on fire and there is an 
uncontrolled release of pollutants into the environment.
  We should be focused on ensuring that these innovative refuse-to-
energy facilities can continue to operate and reduce the serious water 
and air quality problems posed by coal refuse.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Peters).
  The amendment was rejected.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Veasey

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in 
part B of House Report 114-453.
  Mr. VEASEY. 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:

       At the end, add the following new section:

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act may not go into effect until the Administrator 
     certifies that implementation of this Act will not cause or 
     result in an increase of emissions of air pollutants that 
     adversely affect public health, including by increasing 
     incidents of respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses and 
     deaths, such as cases of heart attacks, asthma attacks, and 
     bronchitis.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 640, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Veasey) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. VEASEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment to 
H.R. 3797, the so-called Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the 
Environment Act. This bill is anything but that.
  What this bill does do is that it gives special breaks under two very 
important Clean Air Act rules and allows certain power plants to spew 
out as much nasty pollution as they wish to. These power plants, which 
use waste coal, still emit all the toxic substances a regular coal 
plant does, and they absolutely should not get a pass.
  If the SENSE Act passes, it will significantly affect air quality. 
This is not some radical assertion, and it has stood up to the scrutiny 
of the courts. These rules, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and the 
Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule, are two important rules for 
protecting public health from toxic air pollutants like mercury and 
sulfur dioxide.
  If this bill were to become law, waste coal facilities would be able 
to pollute at a higher rate than any other power plants. There are many 
pieces of particulate matter emitted by coal plants, such as sulfur 
dioxide, mercury, and others, and science has clearly shown that air 
pollutants such as these cause severity when it comes to asthma, 
bronchitis, and even can contribute to heart attack risk. My amendment 
protects the most vulnerable from these adverse health effects.

                              {time}  1530

  My amendment today would ensure that public health is front and 
center in this conversation, which it needs to be. Air quality is an 
issue that affects the most vulnerable among us.
  When you think about it, children, pregnant women, and the elderly 
are some of the members of our society that are most at risk when it 
comes to respiratory diseases from toxic emissions, such as sulfur 
dioxide. My amendment ensures that the effects of air quality are taken 
into account before enactment of the SENSE Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I know a thing or two about this. I don't know how 
often you get to Dallas-Fort Worth, but when you come to our area, 
despite all the jobs and prosperity that we have, we have some of the 
absolute worst smog in the entire country.
  This amendment would serve to protect vulnerable populations by 
ensuring their health is not in danger if this bill becomes law.
  Also, only after their health has been deemed safe may the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency allow this law to 
go into effect.
  There are so many different economic costs when it comes to asthma, 
Mr. Chairman. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention alone 
estimates that asthma costs the United States $56 billion each year 
when it comes to treating people for asthma, particularly our young 
children with asthma.
  So at the end of the day, what I want to do, Mr. Chairman, is make 
sure that the least that we do in this House is to make sure that 
everybody can breathe clean air. I don't think that that is asking for 
too much.
  If my Republican colleagues truly believe the public health of our 
Nation will not be affected by this bill, they

[[Page H1376]]

will have no problem voting for my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  I would remind everyone that we are talking about 19 coal refuse 
plants around the country. They have already cleaned up 214 million 
tons of coal refuse that are creating significant environmental 
problems.
  The SENSE Act does not change or increase in any way the sulfur 
dioxide emission caps. So it does not have any impact on that.
  The EPA itself said that the only benefit from their Cross-State Air 
Pollution Rule and their sulfur dioxide emission rule would be the 
reduction in particulate matter, which is regulated in another aspect 
of the Clean Air Act, and the SENSE Act does not affect or have any 
impacts on that.
  So even the EPA has said that this is not really an issue of 
polluting or endangering the clean air. They simply made a decision 
that they were not going to have a subcategory to deal with these 
plans.
  The gentleman's amendment would require the EPA Administrator to 
certify that the act would not result in the increase in emission of 
air pollutants. They have already basically said that.
  One thing that he does not look at in his amendment is the tremendous 
benefits that the public is receiving by the cleaning up of these coal 
refuse piles around the country.
  So, for those reasons, we respectfully oppose the gentleman's 
amendment. I would remind everyone once again that the SENSE Act is 
designed to clean up these environmental problems, protect 1,200 direct 
jobs and 4,000 indirect jobs and an $84 million payroll, all doing so 
without increasing any emissions toxics to the American people.
  For that reason, I would respectfully oppose the gentleman's 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Veasey).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. VEASEY. 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 Texas 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 B of House Report 114-453 on 
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Pallone of New Jersey.
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Pallone of New Jersey.
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Bera of California.
  Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Veasey of Texas.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


                 Amendment No. 1 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.
  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 166, 
noes 224, not voting 43, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 118]

                               AYES--166

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     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
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Foster
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Poliquin
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson Coleman
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--224

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     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
     Jones
     Jordan
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     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)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--43

     Babin
     Becerra
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Butterfield
     Costa
     Davis, Danny
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellmers (NC)
     Frankel (FL)
     Garamendi
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Gutierrez
     Hartzler
     Herrera Beutler
     Johnson (GA)
     Joyce
     King (IA)
     Lipinski
     Marino
     Matsui
     Payne
     Polis
     Roskam
     Rush
     Scott, David
     Sessions
     Sinema
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Takai
     Thompson (MS)
     Turner
     Visclosky
     Waters, Maxine
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Zinke

[[Page H1377]]


  


                              {time}  1555

  Messrs. MESSER, WESTERMAN, Mrs. BLACK, Messrs. HUELSKAMP, HANNA, 
PEARCE, JORDAN, FITZPATRICK, and GENE GREEN of Texas changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Chair, during rollcall vote No. 118 on H.R. 3797, I 
was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``yes.''
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chair, during rollcall vote No. 118 on H.R. 3797, I 
was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``yes.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 118, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                 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.
  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 175, 
noes 233, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 119]

                               AYES--175

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     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)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Gibson
     Graham
     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
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Poliquin
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--233

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     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
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Green, Gene
     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
     Jones
     Jordan
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     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)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     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)
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Babin
     Becerra
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Davis, Danny
     Duckworth
     Ellmers (NC)
     Garamendi
     Graves (MO)
     Gutierrez
     Herrera Beutler
     Joyce
     Lipinski
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Polis
     Ribble
     Roskam
     Rush
     Smith (WA)
     Takai
     Velazquez
     Wenstrup
     Zinke


                       Announcement by the Chair

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

                              {time}  1559

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


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Bera

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Bera) 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 179, 
noes 235, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 120]

                               AYES--179

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     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
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     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
     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

[[Page H1378]]


     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--235

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     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
     Jones
     Jordan
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     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)
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     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)
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Babin
     Becerra
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Davis, Danny
     Duckworth
     Ellmers (NC)
     Graves (MO)
     Gutierrez
     Herrera Beutler
     Joyce
     Lipinski
     Roskam
     Rush
     Smith (WA)
     Takai
     Waters, Maxine
     Wenstrup


                       Announcement by the Chair

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

                              {time}  1604

  Mr. HIMES changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Veasey

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey) 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 182, 
noes 234, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 121]

                               AYES--182

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     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
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     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
     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
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     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--234

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     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
     Jones
     Jordan
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     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)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     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)
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder

[[Page H1379]]


     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Babin
     Becerra
     Blackburn
     Brady (PA)
     Davis, Danny
     Duckworth
     Ellmers (NC)
     Graves (MO)
     Gutierrez
     Herrera Beutler
     Joyce
     Lipinski
     Roskam
     Rush
     Smith (WA)
     Takai
     Wenstrup


                       Announcement by the Chair

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

                              {time}  1608

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIR. There being no further amendments, under the rule, the 
Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Womack) having assumed the chair, Mr. Westmoreland, 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. 3797) to 
establish the bases by which the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency shall issue, implement, and enforce certain emission 
limitations and allocations for existing electric utility steam 
generating units that convert coal refuse into energy, pursuant to 
House Resolution 640, reported the bill back to the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  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

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

       Ms. Adams moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3797 to the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce, with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith, with the following 
     amendment:
       At the end, add the following new section:

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall not take effect until the Administrator 
     certifies that implementation of this Act will not result in 
     an increase in air emissions that--
       (1) harms brain development or causes learning disabilities 
     in infants or children; or
       (2) increases mercury deposition to lakes, rivers, streams, 
     and other bodies of water, that are used as a source of 
     public drinking water.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, 
which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, 
the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.
  Mr. Speaker, my amendment is a critical improvement that would help 
protect American children in our most vulnerable communities.
  This unnecessary bill would weaken both the Cross-State Air Pollution 
Rule and the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards by allowing waste coal 
plants to emit more sulfur dioxide. Health risks from exposure to 
sulfur dioxide can cause breathing problems, reduced lung function, and 
asthma exacerbations.
  I think about the children in Mecklenburg County that I represent who 
are already suffering from high asthma rates. This bill would further 
put their health at risk as well as the communities both near waste 
coal plants and downwind.
  Communities with limited resources and political clout are often low-
income communities and communities of color. We must ensure, together, 
that these communities and their unique needs have a voice when it 
comes to environmental health policy so that we bolster their 
resilience and reduce the impacts of future disasters.
  As representatives of the people, only negligence and apathy could 
lead us to ignore the risks that this bill poses to human health and 
the environment.
  If my amendment passes, it would make sure that an increase in 
emissions will not harm brain development or cause learning 
disabilities in infants or children and will protect our Nation's 
sources of public drinking water from mercury pollution.
  Research shows that babies and children who are exposed to mercury 
may suffer damage to their developing nervous systems, hurting their 
ability to think, to learn, and to speak.
  Have we not been paying attention?
  Just look at North Carolina. It took a disastrous spill of coal ash 
into the Dan River to make it clear that we were not doing a good 
enough job to protect our communities and our waterways.
  Look at the children and the families in Flint who will never be the 
same because we failed to protect their basic human right of access to 
clean water.
  How could this be a 21st century issue in America? And what has this 
body done to help?
  Not much.
  When will it stop?
  Republicans and Democrats, alike, voted in 1990 to strengthen the 
Clean Air Act to require dozens of industry sectors to install modern 
pollution controls on their facilities. Since then, EPA has set 
emissions standards that simply require facilities to use pollution 
controls that others in their industry are already using. But a few 
major industrial sources so far have escaped regulation, and the 
Republicans appear to be on a mission to help them continue to evade 
emissions limits on toxic air pollution.
  This bill is just another Republican handout: weakening the rule and 
allowing more toxic air pollution and more of these types of health 
hazards. It favors polluting industries at the expense of Americans and 
air quality.
  Moreover, the bill sets a very dangerous precedent that could open 
the floodgates to other special treatment bills, creating loopholes and 
lax treatment that may cause additional health hazards that the Mercury 
and Air Toxics Standards now prevent. This bill is toxic, and it will 
be the knife in our children's back.
  My amendment will improve the bill by putting the health and safety 
of our Nation's children first instead of allowing Republicans to 
continue their assault on the health of our Nation. I urge my 
colleagues to support it.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, as the father of six children, I, too, am 
very concerned about environmental risk to our kids, and I am very 
concerned about the ending of the environmental progress of what we 
have seen in the refuse-to-energy industry to date.
  Let me be clear. There is no change because of the SENSE Act in 
overall changes on SO2, and there is no issue with mercury 
because these plants already comply with the mercury requirements.
  We need to consider the health of our communities if these facilities 
close. This is a reasonable, balanced, and commonsense approach. Let's 
not circle the wagons and say no to continued cleanup on the hillsides 
of Pennsylvania. Let's not say no to restoring streams. Let's not say 
no to the jobs that these plants represent.
  Mr. Speaker, my district is in danger and my constituents are at risk 
unless this bill passes. Coal refuse piles that have persisted for 
generations catch fire and burn uncontrollably, spewing toxic 
pollutants into the air.
  Acid mine drainage leaches into rivers and streams, turning them 
orange and destroying wildlife. Great mountains of coal refuse 
reminiscent of moonscapes feature prominently in the countryside, 
looming over towns, school yards, and farms.
  Without the hard work of the men and women of the coal refuse-to-
energy industry, work that includes painstaking remediation, this 
problem would be far worse. Yet, EPA regulations that are blind to this 
industry's unique circumstances threaten to bring their work to an end.
  You would think our environmental regulatory agencies and 
conservation-minded Members of Congress would be eager to find a viable 
solution to addressing this environmental problem and protecting 
vulnerable communities across coal country.

[[Page H1380]]

  Some Members of this body, it seems, choose not to acknowledge the 
challenges faced by the coal refuse-to-energy industry. They look past 
the overwhelming good done by these plants as they seek to impose their 
environmental orthodoxy.
  It would seem, based on this afternoon's debate, that preventing 
uncontrolled coal refuse fires, ruined waterways, and environmental 
degradation is outweighed by an unflinching attachment to inflexible 
and unfair Washington environmentalist dogma.
  Contrary to what the SENSE Act's opponents claim, these facilities 
will be forced to close if we fail to provide them with reasonable and 
achievable emissions limits.
  It may interest some in this Chamber that the SENSE Act has typically 
been a bipartisan proposal. In fact, both of Pennsylvania's Senators--
Republican Pat Toomey and Democrat Bob Casey--previously introduced an 
amendment that was much broader than the conservative and restrained 
bill on the House floor today. Despite it being a far more aggressive 
proposal, the Casey-Toomey amendment earned the support of a majority 
of Senators.
  Back home, organizations that work to actually address Pennsylvania's 
environmental issues have rallied to the SENSE Act. Both the Western 
and Eastern Pennsylvania Coalition for Abandoned Mine Reclamation have 
endorsed my bill. Watershed groups have also issued letters of support.
  Some today have wrongly argued that the SENSE Act picks winners and 
losers, that it somehow advantages small, endangered coal refuse-to-
energy facilities.
  Somehow, in the minds of the bill's opponents, David became Goliath. 
They fail to see that the issue at hand concerns a small socially 
beneficial industry unfairly battered by an all-powerful regulatory 
giant and fighting for survival.
  What is most striking about the opposition's mischaracterization is 
that the EPA has created winners and losers through its inflexible 
implementation of these rules in which they refuse to treat these 
plants as a separate category.
  The SENSE Act merely recognizes what the EPA should have acknowledged 
a long time ago, that coal refuse facilities are different from 
traditional coal-fired power plants.
  This bill eliminates the EPA's unfairness by giving these facilitates 
a realistic chance of complying with air quality rules.
  Some today have suggested that the States could simply address this 
issue on their own, that my bill gets in the way of State autonomy. In 
fact, States have little to no autonomy in administering CSAPR, since 
any requested change must be approved by the EPA.
  According to the SENSE Act's opponents, the EPA, which has thus far 
refused to provide flexibility for these plants, would somehow have a 
change of heart and decide to approve State-requested policy changes. I 
find that hard to imagine.
  Some have also charged that the SENSE Act would threaten air quality, 
forgetting that this legislation specifically avoids causing any 
increase in State SO2 allocations.
  More importantly, without the remediation work fueled by this 
industry, the uncontrolled and environmentally catastrophic coal refuse 
pile fires that are far too common will only continue. The unregulated 
emissions from these fires are a greater concern to public health.
  It is unfair that some in Washington have pursued an unfair and 
uncompromising orthodoxy on this issue and have derided in their zeal 
an overwhelmingly successful private sector solution to a pressing 
environmental challenge.
  The SENSE Act is about protecting vulnerable coal country communities 
from pollution and environmental degradation. It is about standing up 
for over 5,200 family-sustaining jobs, many of which are in areas that 
have experienced economic hardship. These jobs come with names: Robert, 
John, Tim, James, Pat.
  I urge approval of this legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. ADAMS. 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.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173, 
noes 236, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 122]

                               AYES--173

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Beatty
     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)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Edwards
     Ellison
     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
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     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
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--236

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     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)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     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
     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
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     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)

[[Page H1381]]


     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     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)
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Babin
     Bass
     Becerra
     Blackburn
     Brady (PA)
     Davis, Danny
     Duckworth
     Ellmers (NC)
     Engel
     Graves (MO)
     Gutierrez
     Herrera Beutler
     Hoyer
     Joyce
     Lipinski
     Pelosi
     Rice (NY)
     Roskam
     Rush
     Smith (WA)
     Stivers
     Takai
     Welch
     Wenstrup


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1626

  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 231, 
noes 183, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 123]

                               AYES--231

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     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
     Jones
     Jordan
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     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)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     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)
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--183

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     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
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     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
     LoBiondo
     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
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     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

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Babin
     Becerra
     Blackburn
     Brady (PA)
     Davis, Danny
     Duckworth
     Ellmers (NC)
     Graves (MO)
     Gutierrez
     Herrera Beutler
     Joyce
     Lipinski
     Rice (NY)
     Roskam
     Rush
     Sanford
     Smith (WA)
     Takai
     Wenstrup


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1631

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________