[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.
____________________