[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.

                          ____________________