[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 41 (Thursday, March 8, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H1480-H1489]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SATISFYING ENERGY NEEDS AND SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT ACT
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 762, I call up
the bill (H.R. 1119) 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, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
[[Page H1481]]
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois). Pursuant to
House Resolution 762, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce, printed in the
bill, shall be considered as adopted, and the bill, as amended, shall
be considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 1119
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) 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.
(b) 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 SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) and the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Tonko) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
General Leave
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and insert extraneous material on H.R. 1119.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, coal-fired electric generation has been the subject of
many costly regulations, and we are already seeing an economic impact
on conventional coal facilities. But, today, we are focusing on a
relatively small number of very unconventional facilities that take
environmentally damaging waste coal, burn it to produce electricity,
and then use the resulting ash to remediate the land.
The more you learn about H.R. 1119, the Satisfying Energy Needs and
Saving the Environment, the SENSE, Act, the more you will agree that
these facilities are worth saving, which is what this bill does. I
thank my colleague, Keith Rothfus from Pennsylvania, for sponsoring
this innovative measure, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.
Decades of coal mining in Pennsylvania, and other States, have led to
a legacy of massive piles of waste coal that contributes to water and
air pollution in communities where they are located.
{time} 0915
The cost of eliminating this waste coal has been estimated at $2
billion for Pennsylvania alone, so absent a massive new program, it
almost certainly won't get done.
Fortunately, coal refuse-to-energy plants have been developed and
built in several communities with waste coal. These plants burn waste
coal to produce electricity, and the resulting ash is then used to
remediate the land. Thus far, these plants have eliminated 214 million
tons of waste coal and restored thousands of acres and 1,200 miles of
rivers and streams.
The electricity and the jobs created by these plants are really just
a bonus compared to the tremendous environmental benefits; nonetheless,
coal refuse-to-energy plants are now under threat. Although these
plants utilize a specialized process, EPA has decided to treat them no
differently than conventional coal-fired power plants. As a result, the
Agency has jeopardized the continued operation of these facilities by
setting standards that are not appropriate for them.
The SENSE Act addresses the problem by providing an alternative
compliance mechanism for the compounds regulated under the Mercury and
Air Toxic Standards, which is commonly known as the MATS. The bill
still requires stringent emission reductions at these waste coal-to-
energy plants, but ones that are achievable at these facilities.
I should note that earlier versions of the SENSE Act also included
changes to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, or CSAPR, but those
provisions have been taken out of the version we are voting on today.
The result of this bill would be that these coal refuse-to-energy
plants can continue operating, which would be a big win for the
environment as well as for jobs in the communities in Pennsylvania and
other States where they are located.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1119, the Satisfying
Energy Needs and Saving the Environment, or SENSE, Act.
The SENSE Act continues the theme of the floor this week, giving
unnecessary preferences to a handful of special interests at the
expense of clean air and people's health.
The SENSE Act would weaken requirements of EPA's Mercury and Air
Toxic Standards, or MATS, for power plants that burn waste coal by
enabling a weaker compliance option for hydrochloric acid and sulfur
dioxide
[[Page H1482]]
emissions. To make matters worse, the bill prevents EPA from
strengthening these standards for waste coal pants in the future even
if pollution control technologies become significantly better or less
expensive.
I think we are all proud of the record of the Clean Air Act. As a
nation, we have made significant progress since the 1970s, reducing air
pollution while growing our economy.
This bill is against the spirit of the Clean Air Act and the
bipartisan amendments that have followed. We should not lock in an
insufficient standard when progress is still possible.
Polluters should be pushed to do better, especially when comparable
facilities are meeting those given standards; but instead, these power
plant owners would prefer to get special treatment and a pathway for
meeting the weaker standards for many, many years to come. All the
while, these plants will produce harmful air pollution.
This is not only dangerous but unnecessary. The health risks of these
pollutants are well documented, and it is, in fact, possible for waste
coal plants to meet EPA's MATS. A number of waste coal units have
achieved the standards, and pollution control technologies exist that
would enable noncompliant facilities to meet them, too.
EPA's MATS have already been examined by the courts, which would not
grant an exclusion for waste coal utilities. The courts did not agree
with waste coal plant owners that these standards were impossible to
meet.
EPA established that 8 out of 19 waste coal units nationwide could
meet the rules' acid gas standard or alternative sulfur dioxide
standard already. So now those companies are coming to Congress to
circumvent the court process.
Last year, every Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee
opposed this bill. Those members understood that this bill is simply
not fair. It picks winners and losers in States with waste coal plants,
it disadvantages traditional coal-fired power generators, and it will
allow for more hazardous air pollution. That isn't a good deal for the
power generators that are already compliant with the standards, and it
is a terrible deal for the people who have to live with more dangerous
air pollution.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the SENSE Act, and
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), the author of this
legislation.
Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Shimkus for leading and
his help with this important legislation.
This is going to be an interesting debate. This is a debate about one
size fits all coming out of Washington, D.C., and the failure of folks
in this town at regulatory agencies to not appreciate the nuance of
what is going on in the rest of the country.
I have been on these waste coal piles of western Pennsylvania. I have
seen streams that are dead. I have seen hillsides scarred. I have seen
restoration. I have seen streams come back to life. I have seen
hillsides come back to life.
This Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the Environment, SENSE, Act,
makes sense for those who live outside the Capital Beltway.
The SENSE Act is a vitally important effort that I have championed in
various forms throughout my time in Congress. The bill recognizes the
huge success that the coal refuse-to-energy industry is making in
Pennsylvania, and especially my district, to make it a healthier and
cleaner place to live.
Without the SENSE Act, five coal refuse-to-energy facilities in
western Pennsylvania and West Virginia will close, and their
environmental remediation efforts will end.
Despite what the bill's opponents say, the SENSE Act is, first and
foremost, a pro-environment bill, but it is also a pro-jobs bill, a
pro-union jobs bill, because it is union workers who are going to be
thrown out of work when these plants close. And it is a pro-taxpayer
bill because the environment is being cleaned up without a contribution
from the taxpayers.
The coal industry has a long and storied history in Pennsylvania. Not
only has it been an important part of the economy for generations, but
Pennsylvania coal helped the U.S. and our allies win two world wars.
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 outside of cities and towns, close to
schools, neighborhoods, and in fields across coal country. This has led
to many environmental problems that diminished the quality of life for
people in these areas surrounded by these piles. Vegetation and
wildlife have been harmed, the air has been polluted, and acid mine
drainage has impaired nearby rivers and streams.
I have seen these sites firsthand, as I said, and the environmental
danger they pose.
Coal refuse piles can catch fire. Think about that. They can catch
fire with no limitations at all. It is an unmitigated disaster when
these things catch fire--uncontrolled air pollution. Many are already
smoldering, giving off toxic emissions, again, without any controls
whatsoever.
Runoff from these sites literally turn rivers orange, leaving them
devoid of life.
The cost to clean up all of this is astronomical. Pennsylvania's
environmental regulator estimates that fixing abandoned mine lands
could cost over $16 billion, over $2 billion of which would be needed
for coal refuse piles alone.
We needed an innovative solution to this tough challenge, a
commonsense compromise. This was necessary to get the job done and to
protect the environment. That is where the coal refuse-to-energy
industry comes in.
Using advanced technology, this industry has been able to use
previously worthless material to generate electricity. This activity is
what powers remediation efforts and has successfully removed over 200
million tons of coal refuse, reclaiming polluted sites across
Pennsylvania and other historic coal regions.
Thanks to the hard work of the dedicated people in this industry--
again, many union workers in this industry--landscapes have been
restored, rivers and streams have been brought back to life, and many
towns have been relieved of hazardous waste coal piles.
Here is an example of what this industry has been able to do. Here
you have an abandoned waste coal pile, but through the restoration
efforts, the countryside has been reclaimed. This is a picture of
success done without taxpayer money, improving the environment.
I want to highlight again private sector leadership on this issue
that has saved taxpayers millions of dollars in cleanup costs; and if
the SENSE Act becomes law, taxpayers will continue to save millions.
I should also note that the waste-to-energy industry pays millions in
tax dollars, too, something that my colleagues should be mindful of,
because many of the plants in these areas are areas where there is
still a struggle economically. Multiple groups have previously endorsed
the SENSE Act, including Pennsylvania's abandoned mine reclamation
groups and clean water advocates.
Unfortunately, intensifying and, importantly, inflexible EPA
regulations threaten five plants in western Pennsylvania and West
Virginia. This would leave hundreds of millions of dollars of vital
cleanup unfinished, lead to job losses, and leave many localities
exposed to the harmful conditions waste coal piles pose.
Mr. Speaker, we are talking a handful--a handful--of plants.
The sky is falling. The catastrophic scenario the opponents of this
legislation are arguing about, they don't appreciate the nuance of what
we are trying to do here. The SENSE Act, as it has been amended,
addresses a significant challenge arising from the implementation of
the existing rules, including those under the Mercury and Air Toxic
Standards.
Importantly, these plants comply with mercury emission standards.
There is an issue with how they deal with HCL, hydrogen chloride, and
sulfur dioxide, SO2.
This is a targeted piece of legislation, a customization, as it were,
to recognize the important and vital work that this industry has been
doing. Contrary to what critics allege, the SENSE
[[Page H1483]]
Act simply provides operators with additional alternative MATS
compliance standards, but it is still strict and it is still
achievable.
Despite opponents' claims, this bill is not a sweetheart deal for the
coal refuse-to-energy industry. This bill only prevents a few plants
from being regulated out of existence. This industry represents a tiny
fraction of the energy industry, but it provides enormous environmental
benefits.
Again, this legislation brings a stark contrast to the difference
between elites in this town and what is out there in flyover country,
that you cannot even go in and see the specific issue and that you have
to apply this one size fits all because you are operating from some
ideological framework. It is really unfortunate, because it is the
environment that is going to hurt; it is jobs that are going to be
lost.
The industry works with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection to identify especially dangerous piles and prioritize
remediation.
Mr. Speaker, the amended version of this bill accurately reflects the
spirit of previous SENSE Act versions, and I thank my colleagues on the
Energy and Commerce Committee for their work on it.
It is my hope that we can continue to build support for this bill,
especially in the Senate, where Senators Toomey and Casey, Republican
and Democrat, have previously offered a bipartisan amendment relating
to it in the past. Despite that prior bipartisan Senate support,
previous efforts have failed to achieve the supermajority necessary to
pass, but I am hopeful that the SENSE Act can win enough support to
pass both Chambers.
What we are looking to achieve today is this: a narrow and limited
addition to existing rules for a very small but pro-environment
industry.
This should not be a controversial or partisan issue. We want to hold
this industry to high standards, but to standards they can actually
reach. But for the EPA emission extension that expires in 2019, current
regulations discount the environmental remediation benefits this
industry provides.
{time} 0930
My bill will help keep the coal refuse industry in business so that
local communities, economies, and the 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. Many workers
at the endangered power plants, folks throughout the supply chain, and
their families, are counting on us to protect their livelihoods. We owe
it to them to pass the SENSE Act, including people like Bill Turner.
Bill is a shift supervisor at the Colver refuse facility in Cambria
County. He has worked at Colver for over two decades. He has also lived
close to coal refuse piles. Bill and his colleagues at Colver are proud
of the reclamation work they do. He has put three kids through college
thanks to his job. I know I have said this before, but his children
even played soccer on a field reclaimed from a coal refuse pile because
of this industry. Bill said it would be a travesty if the coal waste-
to-energy industry disappeared.
Another industry worker is Dennis Simmers. He is an engineer at
Colver. For him, this issue is personal. He said three generations of
his family lived in the shadow of a large coal refuse pile.
Unfortunately, his relatives died without ever seeing this
environmental catastrophe corrected. He said: ``There is a real shot
now that I will see it in my lifetime.''
Finally, I would like to recognize Vince Brisini, who testified at
the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee hearing last fall. Vince not only
worked for the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, but
he also lives next to a waste coal pile. Like Bill and Dennis, he has
devoted so much of his time and energy, both professionally and
personally, to solving this problem.
Madam Speaker, we owe it to the environment to keep these five
endangered plants open. We owe it to people like Dennis and Bill and
Vince to see if we can solve the waste coal problem during this
generation. The SENSE Act will help ensure that that remains a
probability. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, pro-
environment bill.
Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael F. Doyle), a longtime member
of the Energy and Commerce Committee and a thoughtful and passionate
voice for the greater Pittsburgh area, and for that matter, all of
Pennsylvania and our Nation.
Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I rise in
opposition to the SENSE Act. This bill is an unnecessary and permanent
carve-out for waste coal plants that forfeits scientific and industrial
progress.
Waste coal plants may be unfamiliar to many of my colleagues here in
Congress because the vast majority of them are located in my State,
Pennsylvania. These plants take waste coal left over from mining
anytime before the late 1970s and use it as fuel. You see, these areas
were mined before laws required reclamation or remediation of mine
damage.
I would just like to remind my colleagues who rail against government
regulation all of the time, that the reason we have this environmental
catastrophe is because there were no regulations before the late 1970s.
This is what happens when we have industry, no government regulations,
we get environmental catastrophes and now we are left to clean up the
mess.
These piles of waste coal have sat covering hundreds of thousands of
acres in my home State of Pennsylvania for decades because there was no
regulation. Many don't realize, Pennsylvania has produced more coal
than any other State. Our mines powered the country while our steel
mills built it into the world's greater industrial nation, the arsenal
of democracy through two world wars.
But now my home State remains saddled with the leftovers, the legacy
of nearly 200 years of unregulated mining. These piles can directly
affect people's health, their communities, and their environment. These
abandoned sites can contaminate local water sources with harmful
runoff, or combust and release toxins into the air at eye level.
Now, I have seen mining sites reclaimed because of these plants, and
the turnaround is remarkable. Over decades of operating, they have
cleaned up about 4 to 6 percent of the total affected lands across our
State, and they have dramatically improved the land at those sites.
They are an important but minor accessory to the use of abandoned
mine land reclamation funds. Let me provide some context to that. The
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection estimates that,
using abandoned mine land reclamation funds, the State and outside
organizations have reclaimed 70,000 acres in my home State. The most
recent industry estimate I have seen on waste coal plants reclaims
approximately 200 acres a year.
Now, let's hear the arguments in favor of this bill. Waste coal
plants help facilitate remediation of abandoned mine sites. Some plants
say they are having a hard time meeting clean air standards, so let's
loosen those standards forever.
But my problem is, we know plants can meet these Clean Air Act
protections. Many already are. The scientists at EPA have determined
this, and the Federal courts have upheld the EPA's ruling. In fact, the
largest plant in Pennsylvania can meet the standards that this bill
undermines.
I understand it can be difficult to upgrade emission controls
technologies in current market conditions. I understand that, with the
many issues that are at the nexus of the energy versus environment
debate when one side wins and the other side loses. But coal refuse
plants present us with an exciting opportunity to have a true win-win.
This bill does not.
This bill says, let's sacrifice our air quality and the air quality
of States downwind, and let's give these plants a pass. Let's sacrifice
progress for a few companies' convenience, and let's stick it to those
companies that have already invested in upgrading their plants, and
let's do this forever.
I believe the environmental issues and the energy challenges our
country and the planet face will be solved through technological
progress and innovation, through scientific advancement and thoughtful
policy. For that reason, I oppose this bill.
[[Page H1484]]
Let me be clear. Pennsylvania has inherited and shoulders a debt, the
collective legacy from our Nation's unregulated industrial past. This
debt is levied on our land, our children, and our communities. We need
help, and we deserve help, to continue righting this wrong. That
requires strong environmental stewardship, increased abandoned mine
land reclamation funds. The RECLAIM Act would provide greater R&D into
making fossil fuels cleaner, and the list goes on.
I want to applaud my colleague on the other side of the aisle for
highlighting the importance of this issue. This legislation, however,
is not the answer. It is still not the answer, and I urge my colleagues
to vote against it so that we can try a different, smarter approach.
I think we can make great progress on this issue in the coming
months. I would welcome cooperation and input from colleagues on both
sides of the aisle in doing so. Let's do this the smart way, the right
way. Let's not penalize companies that are spending the money to
comply, by helping a few companies that claim they don't want to.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
before I yield to Mr. Rothfus just to get things straight here.
Let's see. We can remediate environmental hazards by private sector
dollars. I think that is good, saving the AML for other sites that
can't use private sector dollars. We have a revenue stream to pay for
that remediation. We have good-paying jobs and, as my colleague said,
union jobs.
I am from a coal-producing State everyone knows, deep southern
Illinois. We have a local tax base to protect. Again, it protects the
abandoned mine funds.
When I was a young boy, I had a motorbike, and one of the places to
ride which kind of scared me--I did it a couple of times--was on what
we would call a slag hill.
What is a slag hill?
A slag hill is an abandoned mine refuse pile.
So many of us have lived in and around these sites.
This opportunity to take this and turn it into this, without taxpayer
dollars, is a win. And the gentleman stole my line. The SENSE Act does
make sense for jobs, for a tax base, for remediation, both in land and
water, and protecting the abandoned mine funds to go to those sites
that don't have a reclamation facility that can produce power and put
it on the grid. So I am pleased to be down here and fighting with my
colleague, Congressman Rothfus.
Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
Mr. ROTHFUS. Madam Speaker, I would like to make a couple of points
here. Without this relief, the plants are going to close. This is not a
broad-based industry carve-out. This is for a subset of plants.
When you look at the economics of running a plant, you are looking at
income, you are looking at cost. The fact is, we are seeking a nuanced
approach to recognize the environmental benefit that these plants have
provided, the hundreds of jobs, family-sustaining jobs that are at
stake. It is just frustrating to hear my colleagues just insist on this
one-size-fits-all, seemingly we are incapable of appreciating a nuance.
We don't rail against regulation. We rail against overregulation.
Regulation is important. It is necessary. It should be responsible. It
should be prudent. It should meet a cost-benefit analysis.
I talked about right regulation, not deregulation; right regulation.
You pick the regulation to fit the circumstance that you are in.
A picture paints a thousand words. That paints a thousand words right
there, and the EPA has even recognized the benefit of this industry
here. A quote from the EPA: ``Coal refuse piles are an environmental
concern because of acid seepage and leachate production, spontaneous
combustion, and low soil fertility. Units that burn coal refuse provide
multimedia environmental benefits. . . . ''
Let me say that again. The EPA said: ``Units that burn coal refuse
provide multimedia environmental benefits by combining the production
of energy with the removal of coal refuse piles and by reclaiming land
for productive use. Consequently, because of the unique environmental
benefits that coal refuse-fired EGUs provide, these units warrant
special consideration. . . . ''
Let me say that again. The EPA said: ``These units warrant special
consideration,'' because of the unique environmental benefits they
provide.
That is what the SENSE Act is about.
Up in Cambria County, where they have a number of these piles, there
are streams that flow into the Conemaugh River, that flows into the
Kiskiminetas River, that flows into the Allegheny River, that flows
into the Ohio River. This industry is cleaning up those tributaries,
preventing acid seepage into the Conemaugh, into the Kiskiminetas, into
the Allegheny, and the Ohio.
This bill makes sense, and I would urge my colleagues to seriously
consider it because this is an area where people can come up out of
their trenches and find common ground, something that makes common
sense, reaches common sense. It is pro-environment. The sky is not
falling, as some of the opponents might say. And it saves jobs and
union jobs.
Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael F. Doyle).
Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, let me just say
to my friend--and he is my friend--that none of us have a problem with
these plants. They are providing an important service. The largest one
in our State is complying.
What I don't understand is, when the majority of these plants can
comply and are in the process of complying, why do you want to pass a
law that would exempt them from having to do that?
{time} 0945
It seems that when we have this debate, we only define ``burden'' as
one way. When I hear my colleagues talk about the burden, it sort of
has a singular dimension: money, dollars and cents on a business, on an
individual, on a taxpayer.
What about the burden of lower air quality? Is it not burdensome to
the health of our students, the elderly, folks with asthma to breathe
in higher levels of particulate matter? What about those folks?
When we have an opportunity and we have the technology to have these
plants continue to remediate sites, but to do so in a more
environmentally friendly way, why would we not want to do that,
especially when there are only 14 of these sites in Pennsylvania, and
the majority of them are in the process of complying or are complying?
You know, this bill is the same bill you brought here last year that
didn't pass the Senate. This bill is not going to become law either. I
would just encourage my friend to sit down with members of the
Democratic Party, sit down with these stakeholders, and let's work on a
solution that is futuristic, not one that takes us back to the past.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The EPA quote that Congressman Rothfus mentioned about they should
deserve special consideration was not this EPA. In fact, it was
authored by, in 2011, an EPA under the Obama administration, and the
Administrator at that time was Lisa Jackson.
So we are not, in today's world, saying these plants should have
special considerations. We are in the last administration's world. And
we just believe that that is correct. We believe that we have got to
consider the benefits, and the benefits are remediation of these slag
mounds, restoration of land, sometimes for recreational activities,
protecting our water supply.
Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), author of the bill.
Mr. ROTHFUS. Madam Speaker, I want to talk about some burdens,
burdens like uncontrolled release of toxins into the air when these
piles catch fire, uncontrolled seepage into rivers.
This subset of plants, my colleague from Pennsylvania makes the point
about some of these plants are in compliance. There is such a thing as
economies of scale. And when any business is in operation, you are
looking at costs
[[Page H1485]]
and expenses. You are looking at revenue. And when the costs and
expenses exceed the revenue, you go out of business.
Unless we are able to do a customization for these handful of plants,
they will close. Hundreds of people will lose their jobs. The cleanup
they are doing will stop. While some other plants may continue to
operate and continue the good work, that is great, but it is going to
go at a slower pace. It is going to cost taxpayers more because less
will be cleaned up.
This industry, so far, has cleaned up 200 million tons of waste coal
in Pennsylvania, and that is just the start of the work that needs to
be done. My hope is that it is all going to be cleaned up in our
lifetimes.
So, no, this isn't forever. This isn't forever.
This, again, is taking a look at a situation we have in Pennsylvania,
that we want to recognize the good work that is going on there and,
again, when you look at the EPA under the Obama administration, talking
of the unique environmental benefits that these plants provide and that
they warrant special consideration.
Again, I just urge my colleagues to come up. Let's get out of our
trenches. Let's take a look, meeting, you know, in the middle here.
Support this legislation. Save these jobs. Save these union jobs. Let
these plants stay open, and let's continue to clean up western
Pennsylvania.
Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael F. Doyle).
Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, let me just say
to my friend that at the rate of 200 acres a year, it will be well into
the year 3000 before we reclaim all these sites. So when I say,
``forever,'' there is not going to be any of us sitting here today
around to see it, nor will our children, nor will our grandchildren, at
that rate.
And, by the way, the quote you give from the EPA regarding that was
under a different rule, not the rule that we are talking about. This
boils down to companies that are already spending the money and
complying. Where is the fairness to those companies, their bottom line,
their workers, when they are complying with this rule?
And then you want, literally, a handful of companies not to comply?
And when you talk about customizing a solution, what you are talking
about is no rules. I mean, you are basically saying they don't have to
comply with anything. So the answer to these 19 plants that operate in
the entire United States, of which better than half are in the process
or already complying, is to tell the ones that aren't complying there
are no rules.
Every year, our technology gets better. Every year, technology gets
cheaper. Why would we want to give a lifetime exemption to a handful of
companies that are reclaiming 200 acres a year? And at that rate, we
are going to be into the year 3000. Why would we say you never have to
comply with any rules, when most of those companies are? It just
doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
No one is saying anything bad about these plants. They are providing
a valuable service. They can do it in a much more environmentally
friendly way because technology is allowing that to happen. And all the
EPA and their scientists who study this and the Federal courts, which
upheld their decision, are saying is let's make the environment even
cleaner.
We have seen what happens to our State when there is no regulation.
It is called ``environmental catastrophe.'' Let's not go back to saying
no environmental regulation to this handful of companies that aren't
complying.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Cheney). Members are reminded to direct
their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), the author of the
language.
Mr. ROTHFUS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I wonder if my friend from Pennsylvania has really taken a look at
the legislation, because there are rules that apply. The entire bevy of
environmental rules apply to these plants, and the SENSE Act is going
to leave those in place, all the rules.
What the SENSE Act does is take a look at two factors--two factors--
hydrogen chloride and sulfur dioxide. That is it. And it says, if you
are in compliance with hydrogen chloride, you will be deemed to be in
compliance with sulfur dioxide, or, conversely, if you are in
compliance with sulfur dioxide, you will be deemed in compliance with
hydrogen chloride. Everything else is applicable. Everything else is
applicable.
This is why I talk about a customization for a small handful of the
plants. The group that represents these plants supports this
legislation. The workers in these plants support this legislation. The
people who live next to these coal piles support this legislation.
But to suggest that this legislation means no rules for these plants
is just not accurate. All the rules apply to these plants. We are
seeing a small tweak because, again, when you look at the economics of
running a business, running a plant, you are looking at cost; and if
you are going to impose the cost to put the additional mechanics within
the plant, it is not going to happen. Those plants are going to close.
That is what we are looking at.
So, again, I would appreciate if folks who take a look at this
legislation understand that these plants are still subject to strict
regulation both at the Federal and State level and that this is a minor
tweaking of one rule. While the EPA may have been discussing the
benefit of these plants in the context of another rule, the fact
remains the same: these units warrant special consideration. If it is
true under one rule, it is going to be true under all rules because of,
again, the unique environmental benefits that these plants provide.
Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael F. Doyle).
Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. At the risk of beating this
horse to death--and this will be my final remarks--I would just say to
the Speaker that there are many of these plants that are complying with
this rule, and I commend those plants that are doing that.
It is not fair to those plants that are complying that we exempt
those plants that aren't complying or don't want to comply because they
don't want to spend the money to do so. The idea that all of these
plants are going out of business if they are forced to do that is
simply not based in any reality.
I would encourage the gentleman and the Speaker to reconsider this
bill, which is going nowhere. It may pass the House, but it is not
going any further than that. Let's sit down and work together on a
bipartisan basis to come up with a rule that utilizes the best and
latest technologies, that continues to improve and get cheaper, help
work with these companies that may need a little assistance in
complying and help them comply, and then we truly do have a win-win
situation.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I believe I have the right to close, and
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I have no other speakers. I just would make mention that some 18
groups that are public interest groups have joined together in a letter
opposing this legislation, suggesting and indicating strongly that it
pits waste coal-burning plants against coal-burning plants, that it
creates a public health situation that is an outcome that is negative
for our constituents, and it basically cites that the courts have
reviewed some of the requests made earlier and denied those requests
because they felt that technology was available.
I include the letter in the Record.
March 6, 2018.
Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members,
the undersigned organizations urge you to oppose the amended
Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the Environment Act, or
SENSE Act (H.R. 1119). This bill would weaken health
safeguards for Americans on behalf of special interest groups
and result in more toxic air pollution and health hazards.
The SENSE Act would provide a giveaway to power plants that
burn waste coal under EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards
(MATS). The bill favors waste coal-burning power plants at
the expense of other in-state coal power plants and the
public through blunt political favoritism.
[[Page H1486]]
Specifically, the SENSE Act would permanently exempt power
plants that burn waste coal from having to meet certain
pollution limits. Power plants, including waste coal plants,
are already meeting these standards--passing this bill would
be a free giveaway to polluters, and nothing more.
And the courts agree.
When waste coal plant owners filed lawsuits challenging the
MATS standards in the first place, they claimed it was
``virtually impossible'' to meet the acid gas and sulfur
dioxide limits set in MATS. The court rejected the plants'
arguments.
The judges pointed to clear evidence that waste coal plants
already were meeting these limits. EPA had evidence
demonstrating that 8 out of 19 waste coal units nationwide
already could meet the rule's acid gas standard or
alternative sulfur dioxide standard. In fact, the court noted
that not only were the plants meeting these supposedly
``impossible'' standards, but some of these plants were
``among the best performers'' in achieving hydrogen chloride
reductions among all coal-burning units under the rule.''
Doomsday claims to justify this bill are just that. Waste
coal plants have already had more time than other power
plants to come into compliance with MATS. Rewarding laggards
who continue to drag their feet, even after already getting
special treatment, would undermine all pollution reduction
programs and disincentivize compliance.
Were this bill to become law, the result will be dirtier
air for communities. Indeed, the SENSE Act drags health
standards down to the level of the laggards--resulting in
greater harms for Americans living in states with waste coal
plants as well as in their downwind neighboring states. This
bill is not only bad policy--it is unjustified. It favors the
very dirtiest of polluting facilities at the expense of
Americans, air quality, and responsible power plants who have
already taken steps to clean up their air pollution. Worst of
all, it will lead to greater toxic pollution and health harms
to Americans. We urge you to oppose the SENSE Act.
Sincerely,
Center for Biological Diversity; Clean Water Action;
Climate Hawks Vote; Earthjustice; Environment America;
Environmental Defense Fund; Friends of the Earth;
GreenLatinos; Hip Hop Caucus; Interfaith Power & Light;
League of Conservation Voters; Moms Clean Air Force;
National Parks Conservation Association; Natural
Resources Defense Council; Power Shift Network; Public
Citizen; Sierra Club; Southern Environmental Law
Center.
Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, much like the bill considered by the House
yesterday, the SENSE Act would provide so-called relief to a handful of
companies by shifting the burdens of pollution onto the public.
Congress should not be in the business of putting the profits of
polluters before the health of our constituents.
The reality is, by allowing these plants to pollute more, we would be
doing just that. It will result in greater harm to Americans living in
States with waste coal plants as well as in their downwind neighboring
States, such as my home State of New York.
EPA's MATS are achievable and provide considerable health benefits.
Why shouldn't waste coal plants have to comply? The courts think they
should. We shouldn't have to choose between a giveaway to a couple of
special interests over clean air.
Again, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, Mr. Speaker, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
This has been a great debate. We don't have debates on the floor too
much. I want to thank my colleague from Pennsylvania. He is a good
friend. I think it was well conducted.
Just to close, these are specialized plants for twofold purposes. The
first purpose is to clean up coal refuge sites, which are all over,
again, and it keeps them from having the piles on the ground. And if
they catch on fire, there is no controlling technology for that.
It keeps them from leaching into our streams, as Congressman Rothfus
said numerous times, which is why EPA, again, has said these units
warrant special consideration. That is what this legislation does.
Again, not a Trump EPA, but an Obama EPA made that statement.
{time} 1000
If that 200 acres is in your backyard, that is an important 200 acres
to clean up.
Mr. Rothfus brought this down.
If those 200 acres are here, you want this? This is a pretty good
deal--paid for not by the taxpayers, but paid for by this industry that
is using this technology to take the coal refuse and create
electricity.
As I said once before in this debate, if you have remediation of
environmental hazards, if you have a revenue stream to pay for it, if
you have good-paying jobs, you create a local tax base, and you protect
the Abandoned Mine Land fund, this SENSE Act makes sense.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, ask anyone who lives in or near communities
with waste coal piles from abandoned mines and they will tell you that
they can be a significant environmental hazard. They can leak acidic
water into rivers and streams. They can sometimes catch fire, burn
uncontrollably for months and result in both damage and heavy
emissions. And they can be an economic drag on any community that has
to deal with them.
The good news is that a process exists that can take this byproduct
and use it to produce electricity. The result of that process is an
environmentally-safe ash that can be used to remediate the land from
which the waste coal was taken. It has worked well, and there are
numerous examples of contaminated lands and streams being restored
because of these coal refuse-to-energy plants.
Given the substantial environmental benefits of coal refuse-to-energy
plants, I believe we have an obligation to work to keep them open. That
is why I urge support for H.R. 1119, the SENSE Act.
Unfortunately, these plants are at risk of being tripped up by EPA
regulations aimed at conventional coal-fired power plants.
Specifically, EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics standards did not
distinguish between conventional coal-fired plants and these coal
refuse-to-energy plants that operate very differently. The EPA's
standard as written for one of the targeted compounds, hydrogen
chloride, or HCL, would be difficult for these facilities to
consistently meet.
The bill before us today, H.R. 1119, the SENSE Act, addresses these
concerns and provides an alternative compliance mechanism for HCL that
still requires substantial emissions reductions, but one that is
achievable for these facilities.
By finding a use for potentially dangerous and damaging coal refuse
piles, coal refuse-to-energy plants provide affordable energy and a
tremendous environmental benefit. The SENSE Act is commonsense, and I
urge my colleagues to support this bill that benefits both consumers
and the environment.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1119, the
``Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the Environment Act''.
The SENSE Act continues yesterday's latest effort by Republicans to
undermine the commonsense protections found in the Clean Air Act in
order to give special breaks to polluters at the expense of public
health. The winner of today's Republican special breaks are power
plants that burn waste coal.
The SENSE Act would give power plants that burn waste coal for energy
a free pass on critical public health protections that keep dangerous
toxins out of the air.
It does this by giving waste coal power plants a carve-out from the
pollution control requirements of EPA's Mercury and Air Toxic
Standards--or MATS Rule. This rule represents the first national
standards to address power plant emissions of toxic air pollutants like
mercury, arsenic, dioxin, sulfur dioxide and hydrochloric acid.
The SENSE Act provides a weaker compliance option for MATS that would
give waste coal facilities license to pollute more than they should.
And, the bill would lock in this weaker standard for the foreseeable
future.
That means a small number of waste coal units would be allowed to
avoid controlling harmful pollution in perpetuity, regardless of any
subsequent developments in control technologies, or new information on
the health effects of their pollution. Passing this bill means waste
coal power plants would never have to clean up their act, putting the
health and safety of those nearby and downwind in jeopardy.
So, why are we even discussing such a ridiculous sweetheart deal?
Because the waste coal industry says they need, and deserve, a
legislative earmark, just for using the coal that wasn't good enough to
burn in other power plants.
But that claim doesn't pass the smell test.
EPA determined, and the D.C. Circuit Court agreed, that since
emissions from waste coal units are no different than emissions from
other coal-fired power plants, there is no justification for special
treatment. Many of the waste coal plants already meet the requirements
of the MATS rule, because in reality, waste coal plants are among the
best performing coal-fired power plants in the country.
I see no justification for giving waste coal plants the ability to
pollute more than other facilities, as the SENSE act would allow.
These special breaks are especially offensive to me since I represent
a down-wind state. Pollution generated west of New Jersey moves into
our air shed threatening the public health and welfare of my
constituents. It also increases the burden on New Jersey businesses
that would ultimately be required to do
[[Page H1487]]
more and spend more to compensate for the extra pollution generated by
these plants.
The Republicans claim that EPA is over-regulating business. But, time
and again, the courts have found that EPA is actually failing to
regulate pollutants known to cause harm. This Mercury and Air Toxics
rule has been in development and litigation for nearly 20 years--the
time it takes for a child to reach adulthood. That's more than enough
delay, enough mercury, and enough toxic air pollution. It's time to
clean it up.
Republican-led attacks on clean air protections will not create jobs,
nor will they magically build infrastructure. All a Yes vote on this
dirty air bill will do is boost profits for Republican allies, and make
it easier for corporate polluters to contaminate the air in our
neighborhoods. Meanwhile our children's health is threatened and their
future is sold out, all in the name of more corporate profits.
I strongly oppose the SENSE Act, and urge all of my colleagues to
join me in voting No.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 762, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Kildee moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1119 to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith, with the following
amendment:
At the end of section 2, add the following new subsection:
(c) Limitation.--This Act does not apply with respect to
any coal refuse electric utility steam generating unit
associated with air pollution that--
(1) harms brain development or causes learning disabilities
in infants or children;
(2) increases the risk of cancer;
(3) causes respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses and
deaths, including cases of heart attacks, asthma attacks, and
bronchitis; or
(4) 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. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. KILDEE. 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, this bill is the latest attempt by Republicans to
undermine the Clean Air Act and give breaks to special interests, this
time to power plants that burn waste coal.
The bill undermines the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, the MATS
rule, one of most important protections for public health from toxic
air pollutants from waste coal-burning power plants.
Simply put, the bill would mean more pollutants being put into our
air and our water by waste coal power plants.
And on that point, there is really no disagreement. That is the point
of the legislation, to allow more pollutants to be put into the air.
But not only would this bill give waste coal power plants permission
to pump more pollution into our air, it also prohibits higher standards
from being enacted, even if future technologies are invented to help
control toxic pollution emissions better.
My motion would protect public health and prevent more pollutants,
toxic substances like mercury, sulfur dioxide, and other hazardous
particles, from being released into the air and into the water.
These harmful substances impact brain development. They cause cancer.
They harm respiratory systems. They pollute our lakes, our streams, our
rivers, where people get their drinking water.
As this body has heard me discuss many times, I know firsthand what
happens when we fail to protect our environment and when we fail to
protect our water supplies.
We know what happened in my hometown of Flint, a city of 100,000
people, including thousands of children, poisoned by lead in their
drinking water because of callous decisions by government that put the
balance sheet approach, the dollars and cents that would accrue in this
case to an operator, ahead of the interests of health.
For 4 years, the people I represent have not had access to safe
drinking water because of decisions that were made by government that
allowed the water to be contaminated with high levels of lead, a
dangerous neurotoxin with irreversible and damaging effects on
children.
America is the wealthiest, most prosperous country in the world. It
is a shame that the people of my hometown can't turn on their taps and
trust the water coming out.
What happened in Flint is the result of policymakers, again, putting
the balance sheet ahead of the interests of people. We can't measure
every question on the ledger of a corporation. We have to think about
the health of our people.
Just looking at those short-term effects can lead to really bad
choices. What happened in Flint is absolutely tragic. We ought to take
that lesson and make sure that we do everything we can to prevent the
consequences of ignoring environmental protections, the consequences on
people.
Flint is not an anomaly. Flint is a warning.
What happened there could happen to lots of people all across the
country if we don't take care to ensure that we protect public health
and strike a reasonable balance between the interests of the companies
that are, unfortunately, unwilling to comply as other companies have,
as other operators have, with existing standards. The public interest
has to come first. We should be protecting our constituents from
pollutants, not enacting law that explicitly allows for more pollutants
to go into our air and water. It is the wrong direction for us.
As my colleague Mr. Doyle said, Democrats and Republicans can figure
out solutions to these problems, but the solution is not to take a step
back and pass legislation that rather than empowering organizations and
communities to protect air and water says these rules are too hard for
some to adhere to; and because they are unwilling to spend the
resources necessary to protect public health, we just say: Well, then
it is okay.
We know what happens when government takes that approach. There are
human consequences--consequences that we can't ignore, consequences
that are made clear by the experience of my hometown. I don't wish that
on anyone in Michigan or Pennsylvania, or anyone else.
Mr. Speaker, this Congress ought to do what it can to protect people
from that ever happening to them. I urge my colleagues to support this
motion to recommit, stand up for kids, stand up for the people who live
in those communities who breathe that air, who depend on clean water.
Support this motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, this is really a great debate, and I
appreciate my colleague coming down here to offer this.
I am not sure he was here for the whole debate, but these coal refuse
sites sometimes catch on fire. And you want to talk about pollution and
hazards? These power plants clean those up.
Some of these coal refuse sites leach into the groundwater, the
streams, the tributaries, so that the water is yellow. These power
plants clean them up.
The Obama administration, under Lisa Jackson, said that these units
``warrant special consideration.''
Why?
Because they are remediating all of these environmental hazards. They
are not like a typical power plant. They are meeting environmental
standards, as the author has said.
This bill is supported by the Small Business and Entrepreneurship
Council, the Eastern Pennsylvania Coalition for Abandoned Mine
Reclamation. Actually, the abandoned mine reclamation is not on the
taxpayers' dollar, it
[[Page H1488]]
is on the power plants' dollar. We are saving money in the Abandoned
Mine Land Fund. And the Western Pennsylvania Coalition for Abandoned
Mine Reclamation. So, you see, the eastern and the western side of
Pennsylvania.
It is like the Phillies and the Steelers. Right? There is always
going to be a divide there in Pennsylvania.
Cambria County Conservation District, the Blacklick Creek Watershed
Association. Here is a watershed association supporting this piece of
legislation. The Anthracite Region Independent Power Producers
Association.
As I have said a couple of times during this debate, this is what
this is about: You remediate environmental hazards, and you take land
like this and turn it into land like this at no government cost.
That is why this is the step forward. This is the reasonable
approach. The revenue stream is paid for by corporate America. You have
got good-paying jobs. You have got a local tax base.
Some of these power plants, if this power plant leaves a county, that
is their major employer. That is their major tax base. What are they
going to do? Raise local taxes to meet their schools', counties', and
municipal's obligations?
The SENSE Act makes sense. This motion to recommit is trying to
obviously defeat this bill. This is a sensible bill.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote against the motion to
recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage of the bill.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 181,
nays 225, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 100]
YEAS--181
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gallego
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--225
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Perry
Pittenger
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--24
Bass
Black
Bridenstine
Cardenas
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Cummings
DeLauro
Gabbard
Gaetz
Garamendi
Hudson
Lieu, Ted
Messer
Nolan
Pearce
Poe (TX)
Polis
Richmond
Shea-Porter
Slaughter
Smith (TX)
Wal
{time} 1035
Messrs. MEEHAN, CHABOT, HIGGINS of Louisiana, HARRIS, ROYCE of
California, and DIAZ-BALART changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. GONZALEZ of Texas changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded
Stated for:
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and so I missed
rollcall vote No. 100 regarding the Motion to Recommit on H.R. 1119.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
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. TONKO. 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 215,
noes 189, not voting 26, as follows:
[Roll No. 101]
AYES--215
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carson (IN)
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cuellar
Culberson
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
[[Page H1489]]
Frelinghuysen
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (TX)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lewis (MN)
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reichert
Renacci
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smucker
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--189
Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Faso
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gallego
Gomez
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Mast
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Poliquin
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Reed
Rice (NY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sanford
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Stefanik
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--26
Bass
Black
Bridenstine
Cardenas
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Cummings
DeLauro
Gabbard
Gaetz
Garamendi
Hudson
Lieu, Ted
Lucas
Messer
Nolan
Pearce
Poe (TX)
Polis
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Shea-Porter
Slaughter
Smith (TX)
Walz
{time} 1044
Mr. LOEBSACK changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to
establish the bases by which the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall issue, implement, and enforce certain emission
limitations for existing electric utility steam generating units that
convert coal refuse into energy.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 101 on
H.R. 1119, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``yea'' when I should have
voted ``nay.''
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and so I missed
rollcall vote No. 101 regarding the ``Satisfying Energy Needs and
Saving the Environment Act'' (H.R. 1119). Had I been present, I would
have voted ``no.''
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Speaker, I was at a medical appointment with my son
and was unable to vote, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay''
on rollcall No. 100 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 101.
____________________