[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15606-15632]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]





                             General Leave

  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 
2273 and to insert extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Denham). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 431 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2273.

                              {time}  1049


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2273) to amend subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act to 
facilitate recovery and beneficial use, and provide for the proper 
management and disposal, of materials generated by the combustion of 
coal and other fossil fuels, with Mr. Yoder in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.

                              {time}  1050

  Mr. SHIMKUS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2273, the Coal Residuals 
Reuse and Management Act.
  Fifty percent of our Nation's electricity generation comes from coal. 
This means that we need to do something to address the long-term 
disposal issues presented by these wastes. This bill is a measured, 
appropriate, protective response to the issue of coal waste generated 
to safely, responsibly, and affordably provide heat to communities 
across the country.
  The trash we throw out daily contains everything from milk cartons to 
household cleaning items and pesticides, all mixed and destined for the 
same destination. The chemical characteristics of coal ash put it 
somewhere in between these two extremes. For years, States have been 
successfully managing these nonhazardous wastes through their municipal 
solid waste programs.
  Yet even though EPA has confirmed on multiple occasions that coal ash 
does not trigger its own toxicity test to be labeled as hazardous, 
regulation was proposed by the EPA in June 2010 that would do just 
that. EPA's regulation would have prevented coal ash from being 
governed under the municipal solid waste programs despite its 
nonhazardous nature and EPA saying in its proposed rule that it 
preferred the municipal solid waste option.
  The results of EPA's regulations would have been devastating effects 
on jobs, higher utility rates at home, and crippling of a very 
successful emerging byproducts industry.
  H.R. 2273 strikes the right balance to provide certainty to producers 
and recyclers of coal combustion byproducts at a time when recyclers do 
not have time to wait. It also facilitates a safe and appropriate 
disposal and monitoring of coal combustion byproducts.
  The bill establishes, for the first time ever, comprehensive Federal 
standards specific to coal ash disposal. These new standards for the 
management and disposal of coal combustion residuals are based on 
existing Federal regulations issued by EPA to protect human health and 
the environment.
  H.R. 2273 provides a benchmark for States to regulate under their 
existing municipal solid waste programs, which are already required to 
meet this Federal baseline of protection. These standards will include 
groundwater protection and detection and monitoring, liners at 
landfills, corrective action when environmental damage occurs, 
structural stability criteria, financial assurance, and recordkeeping.
  EPA will continue to have an oversight role to ensure States are 
meeting their obligations. EPA will review the contents of a State 
permit program and determine whether it meets the minimum 
specifications set in H.R. 2273. They will also review State 
implementation of permit programs to make sure States are implementing 
a permit program meeting the minimum specifications.
  However, discretion will remain with the States to regulate coal ash 
even more stringently than the Federal standards set in H.R. 2273. And 
should a State fail to meet these baseline standards or decline to 
regulate coal ash, EPA has the authority under the bill to come into a 
State and operate a program.
  H.R. 2273 received strong 3-1 bipartisan support when it was 
favorably passed out of the Energy and Commerce Committee. We have 
continued to work hard since then with colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to clarify and address additional concerns reflected in the 
manager's amendment. This has resulted in a bipartisan product that 
empowers States, saves jobs, controls public and private costs, and 
protects people and the environment.
  H.R. 2273 has endorsements by a diverse stakeholder community as well 
from the Environmental Council of the States, State environmental 
officials, the beneficial use community, labor unions, and a coalition 
of regulated stakeholders.
  Mr. Chairman, some of our colleagues are going to oppose this bill 
based upon this information or misguided policy. That is unfortunate. 
We will hear plenty about that in this debate. I urge Members to pay 
attention to the debate as many of our Nation's environmental laws 
already apply to the concerns being raised. More laws requiring the 
same thing to be done that is required in other laws do not improve the 
environment nor the law. We need to be serious about that point.
  Most importantly, our economy continues to struggle and businesses 
are trying to figure out how to get out from underneath the weight of 
overly burdensome regulations. H.R. 2273 is a jobs bill that gives us 
yet another chance in the House to regulatory certainty and 
unemployment relief with passage of H.R. 2273.
  This bill protects the working men and women of this country. It 
encourages jobs in road building and construction industries and 
encourages an affordable and more secure standard of living in this 
country for all Americans and their families. This bill is worthy of 
all my colleagues' support.

[[Page 15607]]

  I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 2273, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Today the assault on the environment in this body continues. Two 
weeks ago the House voted to repeal the health standards in the Clean 
Air Act and block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating 
toxic emissions from power plants. Earlier this week, we voted to block 
EPA from regulating toxic emissions from cement plants. And yesterday 
we voted to block the EPA from regulating toxic emissions from 
incinerators. Today we'll vote on whether to stop EPA from regulating 
toxic coal ash.
  On December 22, 2008, a coal ash impoundment in Kingston, Tennessee, 
burst, releasing 5.4 million cubic yards of toxic sludge, blanketing 
the Emory River and the surrounding land and creating a Superfund site 
that could cost up to $1.2 billion to clean up.
  Last year, EPA proposed regulations to ensure stronger oversight of 
coal ash impoundments in order to prevent disasters like the one in 
Kingston and to prevent groundwater and drinking water from the threat 
of contamination. Today we are voting to stop EPA from acting.
  The agency had proposed two alternatives for regulating coal 
combustion residuals: One proposal was to regulate these wastes under 
subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA, as a 
hazardous waste. The other proposal was to regulate under subtitle D of 
RCRA as a nonhazardous solid waste.
  Under both proposals, there would be a minimum Federal standard 
developed to protect human health and the environment. Those standards 
would address wet impoundments, like in Kingston, and would also ensure 
that basic controls like the use of liners, groundwater monitoring, and 
dust control meet a minimum level of effectiveness.
  But the legislation that is being brought to the floor today blocks 
both of these EPA proposals. It replaces those proposals with an 
ineffective program that won't ensure the safe disposal of coal ash.
  At hearings in the Energy and Commerce Committee, we heard testimony 
about the devastating impacts contamination from coal combustion waste 
can cause. We learned of contaminated drinking water supplies, of 
ruined property values. We've learned about improper disposal of coal 
ash presenting catastrophic risks from ruptures of containment 
structures and causing cancer and other illnesses from long-term 
exposure to leaking chemicals.
  But this legislation does not reflect what we learned about the 
dangers of improper disposal of coal ash. Under each of our 
environmental laws--until the Republicans repeal them--Congress has 
established a legal standard when delegating programs to the States. 
That was done, by the way, on bipartisan votes.
  These standards are the yardstick by which it is determined whether a 
State's efforts measure up. They ensure a minimum level of effort and 
protection throughout the Nation. This approach has worked well because 
it prevents a race to the bottom by the States.
  But this legislation does not include any legal standard at all to 
establish a minimum level of safety. As a result, the public can have 
little confidence that this legislation, if enacted, will result in 
increased safety. And to the extent new safety requirements are 
established, nearly all of them can be waived at a State's discretion.
  This legislation appears to create a new program for the safe 
disposal of coal ash. But the decisions of whether or not to provide a 
safe disposal or whether or not to protect groundwater or whether or 
not to protect against toxic dust blowing off disposal sites will 
remain State decisions. There will be no minimum Federal health 
standard.

                              {time}  1100

  The result will inevitably be uneven and inconsistent rules by the 
States. Some States will do a good job, others will do a poor job. And 
when they do a poor job, the public will pay the price--just as they do 
today.
  If this legislation is adopted, no one should be fooled. This bill 
will not protect communities living near these waste disposal sites. It 
won't make high-risk impoundments of coal ash safe. It won't stop 
contamination of drinking water. And it won't create jobs. In fact, it 
won't do much of anything.
  Like the cement and incinerator bills that the House has debated, 
this bill also violates the discretionary CutGo. CBO found the 
legislation will cost EPA $2 million over the next 5 years. This cost 
is not offset in the legislation. So once again, for the third time in 
2 weeks, the Republicans are abandoning their discretionary CutGo rule.
  This legislation is deficient in both process and substance, and I 
urge all Members to oppose it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Latta), a primary mover on this bill.
  Mr. LATTA. I rise today in support of H.R. 2273. Designating coal ash 
as a hazardous waste, as the EPA proposed in June 2010, would raise 
energy prices for families and businesses and destroy a large coal ash 
recycling industry and all jobs associated with it. H.R. 2273 creates a 
unique regulatory infrastructure at the State level that provides 
strong environmental protection without all of the economic 
consequences of a hazardous waste designation. I have an email from the 
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency asking me to support this 
legislation and allow them to do their jobs in Ohio.
  If this legislation is not passed and signed into law, the EPA will 
overturn 30 years of precedent and designate coal ash a hazardous 
waste, despite findings from the Department of Energy, the Federal 
Highway Administration, State regulatory authorities, and the EPA 
itself that the toxicity levels in coal ash are well below the criteria 
that requires a hazardous waste designation. In fact, in the EPA's May 
2000 regulatory determination, they concluded that coal ash does not 
warrant regulation as a hazardous waste, and that doing so would be 
environmentally counterproductive.
  It is estimated that meeting the regulatory disposal requirements 
under the EPA's proposal would cost between $250 to $450 per ton, as 
opposed to about $100 per ton under the current system. In 2008, 136 
million tons of coal ash was generated. That means not passing this 
bill could put an additional $20 billion to $47 billion burden on 
electricity generators that use coal.
  Energy costs aside, about 45 percent of the coal ash generated is 
recycled, being used as an additive in cement, concrete, wallboard, 
roofing materials, road-based fill materials, and snow and ice control. 
While all of this is completely safe, designating coal ash as a 
hazardous waste would halt these beneficial uses, which the EPA 
estimates will lead to $16.7 billion in increased costs per year, 
further damaging our economy. This legislation keeps those products on 
the market and avoids job losses in those industries.
  For those reasons, I support the legislation.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I thank our ranking member for allowing me 
time to speak.
  I rise to express my support for H.R. 2273, the Coal Residuals Reuse 
and Management Act. As a Member of Congress from basically an oil and 
gas and refinery and chemical plant area, for the last 8 months I have 
learned more about coal ash than I think I have ever wanted to.
  We know that coal combustion waste can be responsibly recycled and 
beneficially used. Wisconsin recycles 97 percent of their coal ash. 
Encouraging beneficial reuse of coal ash ensures less of it in 
landfills, which is good for our environment and good for the economy. 
The great debate with coal combustion waste is how do we ensure we have 
enough environmental protections for coal ash disposal without 
discouraging beneficial use.

[[Page 15608]]

  As ranking member of the Environment and Economy Subcommittee of 
Energy and Commerce, I believe the legislation before us today is a 
vastly improved version of the legislation considered by our 
subcommittee for markup, which would simply ban EPA from deeming coal 
ash as a hazardous material. This legislation would further be improved 
by the adoption of the Shimkus amendment, the manager's amendment, 
later.
  Currently, there is a patchwork of State programs to regulate the 
disposal of coal combustion waste. H.R. 2273 for the first time 
establishes comprehensive, minimum Federal standards for coal ash 
management and disposal. Contrary to statements made, H.R. 2273 does 
include groundwater monitoring provisions. The legislation applies 
existing requirements for groundwater monitoring and corrective action 
measures to coal combustion residuals. Facilities would be required to 
monitor and respond to any releases. In addition, States have the 
authority to require facilities that don't meet the standards to close.
  Additionally, this legislation includes a provision championed by my 
good friend, Congressman Doyle from Pennsylvania, which would ensure 
adequate closure standards for surface impoundments, including closure 
plans and drainage standards. I know some Members have concerns about 
the legislation, but we worked diligently with the majority and 
stakeholders to make improvements to the bill. There has been an 
assertion by some of my colleagues that the legislation does nothing to 
protect the environment. EPA has no current authority, and this bill 
for the first time sets those standards.
  The assertions by some of my colleagues that this legislation does 
nothing to protect the environment are misleading at best. EPA has no 
authority now and this bill for the first time sets national standards.
  No, this bill is not perfect. But part of legislating is moving the 
ball forward and we cannot continue to spend months working on 
legislation that is simply sent to the Senate to die.
  I believe my colleagues on the Majority made significant improvements 
since their first draft of the bill and a good faith effort to address 
many of the concerns raised by the minority.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a member of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Harper).
  Mr. HARPER. I rise today in support of H.R. 2273, the Coal Residuals 
Reuse and Management Act. H.R. 2273 is on the House floor as part of 
the Republican regulatory relief agenda to reduce job-killing 
government regulation on businesses. I view the apparent intention of 
the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate coal ash as a hazardous 
material as another decision by the agency to regulate business without 
the use of facts, science, or common sense. Everybody wants a clean 
environment. We all want clean air and clean water, but decisions on 
how to keep our environment clean should be based on science and not 
political rhetoric.
  My State relies on coal and coal ash for jobs and electricity. I have 
heard from utilities in my district about the negative impact that 
regulating coal ash as a hazardous material would have on ratepayers 
and on employees. I am happy to support H.R. 2273 today to rein in an 
out-of-control EPA and to protect the interests of my constituents.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I yield 3 minutes to our colleague and 
committee member, Ms. Castor from Florida.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I thank my colleague from the Energy and 
Commerce Committee for yielding me time.
  In December of 2008, the communities surrounding the Tennessee Valley 
Authority's coal-fired plant in Kingston, Tennessee, suffered one of 
the worst environmental disasters in the Nation's history--5.4 million 
cubic yards, or over 1 billion gallons, of coal ash sludge covered the 
neighborhood after a dam break. This was along the Emory River. It 
damaged 42 homes. That disaster raised a lot of questions and concerns 
about how coal ash is stored all across the country. In that case, the 
TVA had used an above-ground, unlined storage pond that broke loose 
after a heavy rain.
  Some States have appropriate storage standards, like my home State of 
Florida. They're appropriate. But the problem is some States do not 
have the appropriate standard, so I believe EPA was right to begin an 
appropriate national review of guidelines for proper coal ash disposal.
  The problem here is the GOP bill stops that effort in its tracks. The 
GOP bill is too liberal and too permissive. I have relayed to EPA that 
many actors in the field recycle coal ash material. In my hometown of 
Tampa, we send a lot of coal ash for the building of the new Panama 
Canal expansion. And it's used in wallboard. This needs to be 
encouraged. We want to see the beneficial reuse industry flourish. 
Recycled fly ash should not be labeled as hazardous, and I think it 
shouldn't even be labeled as special waste, and I encourage the EPA to 
take this approach. In fact, I proposed an amendment to support this 
approach after discussion with industry leaders, but the Republicans 
ruled it out of order.

                              {time}  1110

  Without it, the GOP bill goes too far. They're abdicating their 
responsibility to protect communities from disasters like Kingston. The 
bottom line is that we all have a responsibility to ensure that coal 
ash is disposed of in ways that protect communities across the country 
and protect human health. The GOP bill does not take that approach and 
does not take its responsibility seriously. It could allow a disaster 
like TVA's Kingston catastrophe to happen again.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I will just tell my friend from Florida, H.R. 2273 includes 
structural integrity inspection requirements on impoundments that do 
not exist today. They allow only those facilities that are structurally 
sound and operating in a protective manner to continue to operate.
  In this Kingston debate, what is never mentioned is that in the 
cleanup of the Kingston spill, all that waste went into nonhazardous 
landfills because they were not hazards. This is really a debate about 
hazardous and nonhazardous. EPA has numerous times ruled that coal 
combustion residual is not hazardous. That's why there's confusion.
  I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, also a member of the committee, 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).
  Mr. OLSON. I thank the chair of the subcommittee.
  Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 2273, the Coal Ash Residuals 
Reuse and Management Act. By supporting H.R. 2273, I'm also rising in 
support of American jobs and environmental protection, a concept that 
may be lost on a few of my distinguished colleagues from the other side 
of the aisle.
  This piece of legislation will, for the first time, establish minimum 
Federal requirements for the management and disposal of coal ash. Not 
only will H.R. 2273 provide certainty for State regulators as well as 
manufacturers that rely on coal ash as building material, it will keep 
coal ash out of our landfills and prevent unnecessary hikes in 
electricity rates.
  EPA has delayed rulemaking because they're weighing two options: One, 
continue to regulate coal ash as nonhazardous; or, two, ignoring 
science to classify it as a hazardous waste.
  EPA has already determined on numerous occasions that coal ash should 
not be classified as hazardous waste. They came to that conclusion most 
recently in 2000, over a decade ago, under the Clinton administration. 
In fact, EPA's finding went even further, arguing that ``Regulating 
coal ash as a hazardous waste would be environmentally 
counterproductive because it would unnecessarily stigmatize coal ash 
and impede its beneficial use.'' Meanwhile, due to the uncertainty 
created by EPA's inaction on this rule, the coal ash industry is 
crashing.
  Regulating coal ash as a hazardous waste flies in the face of years 
of scientific research and EPA's own findings. Coal ash as a hazardous 
waste

[[Page 15609]]

would force unworkable requirements on our electric utilities, 
resulting in serious economic consequences for American job creators 
and American families.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for American jobs and a clean 
environment. Vote for H.R. 2273.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to my 
colleague and a member of the committee, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle).
  Mr. DOYLE. Coal ash is a serious issue for this country and 
especially for Pennsylvania. Nearly all of my constituents get their 
power from coal, and with that power generation comes its byproduct--
coal ash. It's an unavoidable part of our power generation in 
southwestern Pennsylvania.
  And though the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has some of the toughest 
coal ash disposal standards in the country, I have been convinced that 
coal ash needs to be federally regulated under the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act, known as RCRA.
  Now, we've had the opportunity to vote on the coal ash issue several 
times this year. We've seen policy riders on appropriation bills and 
legislation that tied the hands of the Federal Government to regulate 
coal ash. I haven't supported a single one.
  So let's be clear: I have no record of hamstringing EPA or limiting 
environmental protections. But there's been a lot of half-truths flying 
around about this bill, and I think we should clear things up. For the 
first time, coal ash disposal will be federally regulated under RCRA 
through programs run by the States. Though implemented by the States, 
the permit programs will be developed according to Federal standards 
from section 4010(c) of RCRA, the section that must serve as the 
baseline for these State permit programs that require criteria 
necessary to protect human health and the environment.
  We've also heard this bill will create a ``race to the bottom'' 
whereby utilities will ship their coal ash to States with the least 
stringent regulations. That's just not realistic. If this were a real 
concern, utilities in Pennsylvania would already be doing this, as we 
have very strict regulation of coal ash. But utilities in Pennsylvania 
don't ship their coal ash out of State because it's just not 
economically feasible to do so.
  I'm pleased to hear good, informed debate this morning with important 
points being made by both sides. We've made significant improvements to 
this bill, and there is still more that can be done. But we need the 
chance to move legislation that will for the first time allow us to 
federally regulate coal ash. I believe this bill was the necessary 
vehicle to move that goal forward, and I encourage my colleagues to 
support it.
  I yield to my colleague from Texas.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I thank my colleague.
  I think what Congressman Doyle was saying was, we're doing something 
here we don't do very often in this House: We actually have a bill that 
came out of committee that has bipartisan support. It moved the bill to 
where EPA does not have the authority under current law unless they 
label it toxic coal ash so the EPA has oversight. We're giving them 
oversight over what our States have been doing--in most cases, very 
good.
  That's why this bill is something we haven't done on this floor very 
often in the last 10 months. We actually compromise and come up with 
good legislation. And we hope the Senate will pass it.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
2273, the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act of 2011.
  Unfortunately, this legislation is necessary because last June the 
Obama administration proposed two new rules in its ongoing war on coal 
that could cost tens of thousands of jobs and tens of billions of 
dollars to our GDP. The two new rules are a departure from decades of 
accepted practice of allowing States to regulate coal ash.
  Furthermore, EPA's current actions fly in the face of two previous 
EPA studies--one study from the Clinton administration--which found 
that coal ash shouldn't be regulated by the EPA as a hazardous 
material.
  Now, keep in mind these new rules will not only negatively effect the 
coal and the utility industries but also will lead to job losses and 
increased cost for the infrastructure and construction industries. 
Furthermore, coal residuals are a key component of many of the 
materials used by these trades. If the EPA is successful in classifying 
coal residuals as a hazardous material, the cost of the raw goods in 
these vital industries would skyrocket.
  This bipartisan legislation not only stops the onerous proposed rule 
from going forward, but also allows States to regulate coal residuals 
by using an existing and successful Federal regulatory program. This 
compromise bill sets realistic and enforceable standards while leaving 
the regulation enforcement to the States. In fact, State environmental 
officials, including my home State of Ohio, see this type of regulation 
as a model for the future because it provides strong health and 
environmental protection with minimal Federal EPA involvement.
  At a time when the President and the other side of the aisle are 
stumping for their so-called jobs proposal, Madam Chair, I find it 
confusing and ironic that this administration would propose rules that 
will cost tens of thousands of job losses and will lead to the loss of 
billions of dollars from America's GDP. This legislation will save the 
administration from themselves by saving jobs while still protecting 
human health and the environment.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support the legislation.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I just want to say to my good friends who 
feel that we've got to move the bill forward and we've got to get a 
better bill, I understand that, and this bill is going to move forward. 
But for those who really want a good bill, we're not getting one out of 
this House. It's better to vote ``no'' to show that you want a better 
bill than to vote ``yes'' for the small changes that the Republicans 
have given to some of our Democrats that may improve the bill on the 
margins, but the bill is not good enough for an ``aye'' vote.
  I still urge Members to vote ``no.''
  At this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Connolly).

                              {time}  1120

  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank my friend.
  Madam Chairman, the House majority has bought yet another anti-EPA 
bill to the House floor. Last week, the House passed legislation to 
increase mercury and particulate pollution from cement factories, 
poisoning fetuses and increasing the incidence of diseases such as lung 
cancer and emphysema. This week, the House passed legislation to 
increase mercury and particulate pollution from industrial boilers. 
These follow some 125 other virulently anti-environmental bills, 
riders, and amendments that the majority has already tried to pass this 
year.
  H.R. 2273, the legislation on the floor today, is but the latest 
assault on the environment and public health. This bill would block the 
EPA from issuing science-based standards to manage the disposal of coal 
ash. Unfortunately, the majority rejected language, which had the 
support of a number of utilities, which would have protected EPA's 
authority to issue health-based standards under the Clean Water Act. If 
the majority had protected rather than curtailed this authority to 
issue regulations based on science, not politics, then I could support 
the legislation before us today.
  Mr. Waxman is offering an amendment which would protect the EPA's 
Clean Water Act authority. If that amendment passes, then perhaps most 
of us could vote for final passage of the bill.
  Such standards clearly are necessary, or impoundments such as the one 
in Kingston, Tennessee, would not be failing. When that impoundment 
failed in Tennessee, it released a billion gallons of toxic sludge into 
the Clinch River. Fortunately, that impoundment was located downstream 
of most of the biodiverse portions of the Clinch, which

[[Page 15610]]

contained unparalleled populations of freshwater mussels and other 
aquatic species. In fact, the Clinch has more species of freshwater 
mussels than the entire continent of Europe.
  According to the Nature Conservancy, ``The Clinch, Powell, and 
Holston Rivers run nearly parallel courses to the remote mountains and 
valleys of southwestern Virginia and northeastern Tennessee. These last 
free-flowing tributaries of the Tennessee River harbor the Nation's 
highest concentrations of globally rare and imperiled fish and 
freshwater mussels.'' These watersheds are the most biodiverse regions 
east of the Mississippi River, and among the top biodiverse places in 
all of the United States. H.R. 2273 would increase the risk of coal ash 
spills in the upper Clinch, Holston, and Powell Rivers, potentially 
causing many species to go extinct.
  Human health is also at risk as a result of poorly regulated coal 
mining in Appalachia. Scientists from West Virginia University have 
conducted extensive research on the human health impacts of coal mining 
and local populations. They found that residents of coal mining regions 
have significantly higher rates of chronic heart, respiratory, and 
kidney illnesses. Coal mining regions of Appalachia have higher rates 
of cancer and premature mortality.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Biggert). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Imagine if Teddy Roosevelt had allowed a 
few gold miners in the Grand Canyon to block protection of that great 
American landmark. Imagine if loggers and sheepherders had blocked 
designation of Yosemite as a National Park. Today, we confront a 
similar challenge--to protect one of America's great places, 
Appalachia, in the face of special interest assault.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2273.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Before I yield time to my colleague from Tennessee, let 
me ask the time remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois has 17 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from California has 13 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Just to my friend from Virginia, I hope he will look at the manager's 
amendment, because in the manager's amendment it beefs up the list of 
constituents for groundwater detection and assessment monitoring 
specific to coal combustion residuals. This is something we received 
from your side of the aisle that they wanted more clarity. That's what 
the manager's amendment does on runoff aspects of the Clean Water Act.
  The other thing is, if the toxic sludge, as you had defined it, was 
so toxic, why did it go into municipal landfills and not into toxic 
landfills?
  The reality is the cleanup materials did not go into toxic landfills. 
So we just want to clear up some false statements here.
  I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, 
Dr. Roe.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 2273. This bipartisan 
bill will protect the beneficial use of coal ash while also providing 
for consistent State regulatory authority to store and regulate coal 
ash under the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
  My home State of Tennessee has seen the problems coal ash can cause. 
In December of 2008, TVA's coal-fired plant in Kingston, Tennessee, had 
the largest coal-related spill in U.S. history. This terrible disaster 
resulted in some 1.1 billion gallons of ash flooding parts of the 
Tennessee Valley. So there's no question we must have proper oversight. 
And, Madam Chair, I visited that site previously.
  With that being said, the reality is coal ash is abundant and can be 
economical and versatile. The use of coal ash keeps electric costs low 
for the consumer and provides low-cost, yet durable, construction 
materials. From 1999 to 2009, 519 million tons of coal ash were 
recycled--38 percent of all ash produced. Reusing ash decreases 
greenhouse emissions and also helps prevent spills that can result from 
its storage.
  The bill we're considering today ensures the safe management and 
disposal of coal ash by ensuring existing regulatory standards are 
enforced without interfering with State regulations and storage 
standards. This will help prevent future disasters like the one in 
Kingston because it encourages investment in recycling and reuse of ash 
in a way that benefits contractors, consumers, and American job 
creators.
  The Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act is a bipartisan solution 
to the challenges that arise from coal ash. It safeguards the consumer 
and the environment without hurting the economy. It is imperative that 
we pass this bill, because if we do not, the administration's proposed 
regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act will move 
forward to classify coal ash as hazardous, increasing costs for the 
coal-fired plants, which would put thousands of jobs in jeopardy and 
drive up electricity costs.
  American job creators cannot afford another regulatory burden. I urge 
my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, I just wanted to make a correction for the record.
  Some people have suggested that it's going to be considered a 
hazardous waste site if they dispose of this waste, and we don't 
believe that's true. We don't want to treat it as if it were household 
garbage without the guarantees to protect the public health and the 
environment. It can be something in between. It doesn't have to be 
considered hazardous waste. And that is exactly the kind of proposal 
that we ought to be looking at. And to say that we're considering it 
hazardous waste is an incorrect statement.
  May I inquire how much time each side has?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 12\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Illinois has 14\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, at this point I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  Mr. ELLISON. I'd like to thank the ranking member of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee and the chair.
  We're seeing a trend here in the House of Representatives, Madam 
Chair, attacking the EPA and not working on jobs. This bill does 
nothing to regulate coal ash in a way that protects the environment or 
public health. This bill wants to give regulatory power to States, but 
there is no national minimum standard for State permitting programs in 
this bill.
  The municipal solid waste standards used by this dangerous piece of 
legislation are inadequate to protect our communities from dangerous 
toxins. Many of the toxins found in coal residuals are simply dangerous 
to public health and are known cancer-causing agents. Just a few of the 
toxins found in coal ash include arsenic, chromium, lead, mercury, 
nickel, and a bunch of other stuff that's hard to pronounce.
  This bill will allow these toxins to enter our drinking water in 
dozens of communities across the country. On top of releasing toxins 
into our drinking water, H.R. 2273 does nothing to promote recycling of 
coal ash. Instead, it promotes the indefinite storage of coal ash, 
which furthers the leaching of dangerous carcinogens and neurotoxins 
into our drinking water. Additionally, this bill denies the EPA from 
instituting a deadline or meaningful cleanup standard for disposal 
sites that have already contaminated groundwater.
  It has been 40 weeks the Republican majority in the House has been in 
the majority, and we haven't voted on a single jobs bill, Madam Chair. 
This train of bills dealing with cement emissions, dealing with the 
TRAIN Act, dealing with Boiler MACT rules--and now, today, coal ash--
suggests that the Republican majority believes that the problem to 
creating jobs in America is that Americans want to breathe clean air 
and drink clean water, and it's just too expensive to do.

                              {time}  1130

  This is a false statement, this is not true, and I hope that we 
reject this bill today.

[[Page 15611]]


  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Just to my friend from Minnesota, I would quote the United Mine 
Workers letter that says: According to a June study, there's an 
estimate of the 183,000 to 363,000 possible job losses if we do not 
pass this bill. So for those who really want to effect, there will be--
I mean, this claim that this hurts the recycling when, then, you define 
coal combustion residuals as ``toxic'' is nonsensical. It really makes 
no sense.
  If you really want to encourage recycling, this bill protects the 
recycling industry. It protects coal, fly ash from going into concrete. 
If you label this ``toxic,'' which is what EPA's trying to do, that's 
very misleading. And I think even my friends on the other side are 
having a hard time grappling with what the EPA's trying to do because 
that's the direction we want to do, they want to move it to.
  With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from 
Illinois (Mr. Hultgren).
  Mr. HULTGREN. I rise in support of this commonsense bill that is good 
for jobs and the economy. I thank my good friend Congressman Shimkus 
for his very important work on this bill.
  What we're confronting here today is another classic example of EPA's 
regulatory overreach threatening jobs and livelihoods across the 
country. This is also an issue that concerns my constituents, as 
thousands of jobs are in industries using coal combustion residuals. 
But the jobs impact of this legislation is not limited to my district. 
It's nationwide.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this pro-
growth, pro-jobs bill.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, the supporters of this bill claim that this 
legislation will save jobs. Their main evidence is a report by the 
Electric Power Research Institute that claims that regulating coal ash 
as hazardous waste would lead to the loss of 300,000 jobs, but this 
claim is wrong.
  For example, the EPRI study estimates job loss by assuming that there 
would be 100 percent reduction in recycling and beneficial reuse. This 
assumption is based on no analysis whatsoever, and it's at odds with a 
survey done by the National Precast Concrete Association, which shows 
that 84 percent of their members would continue to use fly ash even if 
the waste were to be regulated as hazardous.
  In fact, EPA has formally requested that EPRI issue a statement that 
corrects the misstatement and misrepresentations that were made in this 
report and which have been repeated here today. The EPRI study is 
flawed, should not be relied on.
  We need to reject these arguments that in order to have jobs we need 
to allow contamination of our groundwater and allow human health to be 
jeopardized by coal ash impoundments.
  I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from the State 
of Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
  Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Chairwoman, it seems that hardly a day goes by in 
this Chamber when the Republican majority fails to create jobs, 
endangers public health, and deep sixes the environment, and today is 
no different.
  Coal plants are usually accompanied by coal ash ponds and dry coal 
ash landfills, and they're disproportionately located in impoverished 
areas. Two-thirds of all of the ash ponds in the United States are 
located where household income is below the national median, according 
to Earthjustice. What that means is that poor people don't have a voice 
in what the majority is trying to do; and we can't rely on a voluntary 
patchwork of State regulations, which is what this bill would have us 
do.
  Now, in my own home State of Maryland, we have a decent record of 
environmental regulations, but I can't say that about our neighboring 
States. We need a national way to look at how we're contaminating or 
not our environments. The contamination of groundwater at the Gambrills 
coal ash plant in Maryland resulted in the single largest fine ever 
imposed by our State's Department of the Environment, and a $57 million 
settlement for the affected homeowners and businesses.
  The problem is that money can pay for medical treatment and 
compensate for the loss of property value in the right way, but it 
can't bring back health. It can't reverse the developmental 
disabilities or preserve the sense of home for people who are 
displaced.
  Now, I said some of the affected homeowners in that settlement, 
because even in this case we see discrimination. The neighboring 
population of Odenton, Maryland, is a rural African American community, 
and it's still battling contamination from the Turner Pit site 
belonging to the same power plant. Their drinking water aquifers and 
creeks feeding into the Patuxent River, which is an important source of 
potable water for the entire metropolitan Washington region, remains 
polluted.
  They've seen no cleanup. They've yet to receive any compensation for 
lost health and property values. What they got instead is a steady 
supply of free bottled water, courtesy of the polluting power plant--I 
mean, it's absurd--and an extension of a shopping mall to cover the 
contamination site; not to cover the contamination, but to cover the 
contamination site.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you.
  What I'd like to say is that, given that we know that in poor 
minority populations they have the worst health outcomes by any measure 
and coal ash impoundments are disproportionately located in low-income 
communities that are less likely to have medical access to insurance 
and care, we have to be concerned. This body needs to be concerned. And 
if we pass this bill, we will unfairly expose these vulnerable 
communities to higher levels of threatening health and property risk 
than the rest of the population.
  I think, Madam Chair, we can do a lot better; and in this Congress, 
we should be looking out for people, not failing to create jobs, 
contaminating their water, and poisoning their air.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I just want to remind my colleagues that they will be interested to 
know the EPA noted in its June 2010 proposed regulation for coal 
combustion residuals that municipal solid waste rules provide an 
appropriate, comprehensive framework for regulating coal combustion 
residuals. That's from the EPA, the same EPA people say we're trying to 
gut.
  And I will continue to hold up the Veritas study that says, because 
of the recycling aspect of coal ash that goes into concrete, if you 
claim it to be toxic, you can no longer use coal ash in concrete for 
roads and for bridges and for buildings. That's the debate. And then 
when you tear down those structures, they would have to go in the toxic 
landfills. I also remind my colleagues that, from the spill, none of 
the spill cleanup went to toxic landfills.
  With that, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from West Virginia (Mr. 
McKinley), the author of the legislation.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of this 
bipartisan, pro-job, pro-environment, pro-health legislation. After 30 
years of debate, of charges and countercharges, we can finally get this 
done.
  Just as an example of the disparity and misrepresentation here, we 
talked about mercury. That was discussed earlier. Fluorescent light 
bulbs in our homes contain mercury in a higher concentration than coal 
ash, but yet our fluorescent light bulbs are disposed of in a way that 
we're going to take care of now under this bill.
  In fact, there are two parts of this bill. The first part removes the 
stigma of the EPA classifying fly ash as a hazardous material. Several 
studies by the EPA have concluded time and time again that the chemical 
characteristics within coal ash are nonhazardous.
  We've already heard the advantages of the recycling.
  But I just want to remind the gentleman from California that during 
the

[[Page 15612]]

subcommittee markup, he supported the Baldwin amendment that prohibited 
the EPA from regulating coal ash as a hazardous material, yet he 
continues to refer to coal ash as toxic. This is simply unacceptable. 
One cannot have his cake and eat it, too.
  The second part of the bill, which deals with disposal, was worked on 
with Democrats, State agencies, and a cross section of stakeholders 
during subcommittee, full committee, and before this bill came to the 
House floor.

                              {time}  1140

  Ultimately, should this legislation become law and new scientifically 
based factors arise, this legislation will allow for the flexibility of 
the States and the EPA to work together to adjust the coal ash program 
accordingly. If a State has no program, fly ash impoundments will not 
be permitted by the EPA until they do. If a State opts not to have a 
fly ash program, the EPA will have primacy. If the government should 
lower the drinking water standard at any time because of changes in 
chemical characteristics such as those found in coal ash, then the 
States will have to comply with those new standards.
  But should a State, such as proposed in California, decide to lower 
their standards below the federal level, then they have the option to 
do that under the 10th Amendment.
  H.R. 2273 simply allows for a flexible system, a working relationship 
with the State and Federal Governments to carry out a long overdue coal 
ash program at the State level with stringent requirements for liners, 
groundwater monitoring, financial assurance, dam safety and integrity, 
and most of all, protection of health and the environment. All of this 
will be achieved with assistance, approval, and oversight by the EPA.
  I ask all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan, pro-job 
legislation.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time we have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 7 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Illinois has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WAXMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia, who just spoke, said 
that I was inconsistent because I voted for the Baldwin amendment in my 
committee, so I can't have my cake and eat it too. Well, I want to 
assure you that I don't want a cake made out of coal ash. Coal ash has 
a lot of chemicals in it that I think most people would understand 
raise a problem of toxicity--arsenic, antimony, barium, beryllium, 
cadmium, lead, mercury, hexavalent chromium, nickel, selenium, and 
thallium. These metals are toxic and pose both acute and chronic 
threats to human health and the environment. So don't give me a cake to 
eat made out of coal ash.
  It seems to me that what we're hearing, for example, from the 
gentleman from Illinois, that the waste in Kingston was not disposed of 
in a hazardous waste landfill, and he offered this as proof that these 
materials are not hazardous. Well, these materials contain these toxic 
constituents, and if they're not disposed of properly, they will harm 
human health and the environment. Proper disposal does not mean 
disposal in a hazardous waste landfill. It means disposal in dry 
landfills that have the necessary safeguards.
  Those safeguards are not in this bill. We've offered to work with the 
Republican majority to clarify this issue and to find a middle ground 
that I think in substance could solve those concerns. But they, again, 
are not interested in working with us, and so they're moving forward 
with a bill that does not live up to its billing.
  At this point I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran), who is the chairman of the Appropriations 
Subcommittee that deals with these very issues.
  Mr. MORAN. I thank the very distinguished leader from California (Mr. 
Waxman).
  Over 30 years ago, Congress accepted the legal responsibility to 
protect human health, conserve our natural resources, reduce waste, and 
ensure that waste is managed in an environmentally sound manner. That's 
the underpinning of what this argument is about.
  Now, every year, America generates about 61 million metric tons of 
coal ash and slag and about 17 million metric tons of coal sludge from 
utility and industrial boilers. Now, Mr. Waxman mentioned what's in 
this sludge and slag, and that's why we're raising this argument, 
because it contains all the chemicals Mr. Waxman referred to--arsenic, 
chromium, cobalt, lead, and mercury. In fact, it includes radioactive 
elements including uranium, thorium, and radium.
  This material is very toxic. But we also know that coal ash, slag, 
and sludge have a number of beneficial reuses in concrete, roads, and 
roofing. And EPA is not trying to ban the beneficial reuse of coal ash. 
In fact, EPA proposed two separate possible regulations so that you 
could have a robust dialogue on the most effective means of coal ash 
disposal. EPA wants to ensure that the ultimate decision is based upon 
the best available science and technical data, and is taken with the 
fullest public input. EPA had extensive public involvement--thousands 
of public comments and eight public hearings around the country.
  Now, this legislation would deprive EPA of the ability to use the 
best available science in its decisions, and it would negate those 
thousands of public comments that have been received since the rule's 
proposal. It would block the current progress on federal safeguards 
before the regulations have been finalized.
  Now, what's the problem with the approach that has been made by the 
other side? Well, it would create a patchwork of compliance with up to 
50 different State-by-State regulations, and it would block federal 
enforcement of what is clearly a national problem.
  It's a national problem because States with lax coal ash disposal 
requirements--and there will probably be economic competition to reduce 
the requirements as much as possible--those States would be allowed to 
pollute the streams and rivers of downstream States, and the Federal 
Government would be powerless to do anything about it. That's why these 
interstate impacts are the very reason federal regulation is 
appropriate, necessary and, in fact, is our legal responsibility.
  We understand that many people are concerned about this. Granted. And 
a number of claims have been made that it would ban the ability to 
develop concrete and road material and so on. But this rule has not 
been finalized. EPA has received so many comments and suggestions that 
it would seem that we are in a situation where we can structure a rule 
that not only takes care of the concerns but protects the public 
health.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. MORAN. I would have to say, as important as it is to protect 
jobs, it's important to protect lives. We have a responsibility to 
protect lives. You heard what's in this material. You can see why it's 
a national responsibility. So let's fulfill that national 
responsibility. Rely on EPA to use scientific findings. Let's protect 
the public health and do the right thing and defeat this legislation.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  To my friend from Virginia, he is correct that some States have laxer 
standards. In fact, your Governor sent us a letter in which I quote, 
``H.R. 2273 is a realistic approach to dealing with CCR, although it 
would require effort to implement in Virginia.''
  So our point is this is going to help those States that are weak to 
implement higher standards. That's just your Governor, but that's what 
he says in a letter to us in support of this legislation.
  If you label something ``toxic,'' it's not going to be reused, I can 
guarantee you, just because of the threat to the coal combustion 
residual community. The recyclers have no market. Who wants to build a 
school with concrete when the EPA may, 6 months or a year from now, 
say, That concrete is all

[[Page 15613]]

toxic? So it's already had a negative impact in that job sector, and 
we've quoted studies both back and forth.

                              {time}  1150

  The manager's amendment requires an assessment for all of these 
constituents that you identified. I would just highlight the fact that 
just because it's a constituent doesn't mean it's hazardous.
  This blue line is the hazardous level.
  The green is the amount.
  You could make the claim that there is hazardous material in Honey 
Nut Cheerios. The question is: What's the amount? And that's what this 
gets to is the amount.
  EPA has consistently said this doesn't raise to the standard of 
toxic. Even under the Clinton administration, when I served here, their 
EPA said it doesn't rise to the standard. The fear of EPA involvement 
is what's causing a problem in the recycling sector. Where is all this 
waste going to go? It's going to fill up the landfills. In 2 years, all 
the landfills will be filled up unless we continue to recycle this coal 
fly ash.
  Mr. MORAN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN. As we know, airstreams and rivers and other bodies of 
water don't stop at a State's border. If that is the case, how is it 
fair for one State to let that pollution go into a downstream State's 
water? That's our concern.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Reclaiming my time, the manager's amendment that will be 
debated will talk about, for the first time, an analysis on run-on and 
runoff, which was the recommendation from the folks on your side of the 
aisle for us to consider, which we have now included. We'll take that 
up in the manager's amendment debate when we get to the amendment.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHIMKUS. You have a lot of time, but I would be happy to yield. 
But I do want to have time to close.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much.
  You've made the claim that we're trying to define this and label it 
as hazardous, which is a stigma. I understand that and I agree with 
that point, but I don't think we ought to deny that there are in coal 
ash relatively high concentrations that are hazardous and that, if 
they're improperly managed, they could leach out and pose a substantial 
present or potential hazard.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Reclaiming my time, that's why this new standard under 
the municipal and solid waste act will have liners for the first time. 
Right now, there are no liners. That's a better argument from past 
years, but this is a fix. This is a fix to that issue of leaching out. 
This is a fix to the possibility of the damage because we're going to 
be able to look at that in working in conjunction with the EPA, and of 
course, the people closest to the citizens are the State and local 
levels.
  Mr. WAXMAN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, your point is 
not accurate for existing impoundments; it would apply to future 
impoundments. And we think for existing impoundments they ought to have 
the lining and all the other protections as well.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank the gentleman.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 1 minute 
remaining, and the gentleman from Illinois has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I just want to point out that neither of us wants the stigma of the 
coal ash being called hazardous because, in many ways and places, it 
can be reused, and it would be very important to do that. But we want 
to make sure that all of these sites have the adequate protections.
  I want to read a quote from EPA because people said EPA wants to 
label it as hazardous. They wrote:
  Many of these metals are contained in coal ash at relatively high 
concentrations such that, if coal ash were improperly managed, they 
could leach out and pose a substantial present or potential hazard to 
human health or the environment. The risk assessment that was conducted 
confirms this finding, as do the many damage cases that have been 
documented.
  I seek to put into the Record a statement of administrative policy. 
The administration opposes this bill because it is insufficient to 
address the risks associated with coal ash disposal and management, and 
it undermines the Federal Government's ability to ensure that 
requirements for the management and the disposal of coal combustion 
residuals are protective of human health and the environment.
  I yield back the balance of my time and urge a ``no'' vote on the 
bill.

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                 Washington, DC, October 12, 2011.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


           H R. 2273--Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act

                (Rep. McKinley, R-WV, and 32 cosponsors)

       The Administration opposes H.R. 2273, as reported by 
     Committee, which is insufficient to address the risks 
     associated with coal ash disposal and management, and 
     undermines the Federal government's ability to ensure that 
     requirements for management and disposal of coal combustion 
     residuals are protective of human health and the environment.
       The 2008 failure of a coal ash impoundment in Kingston, 
     Tennessee, which spilled more than five million cubic yards 
     of coal ash and will require approximately $1.2 billion for 
     clean-up, is a stark reminder of the need for safe disposal 
     and management of coal ash to protect public health and the 
     environment. The Administration has assessed structural 
     stability at active coal ash impoundments and has identified 
     49 units in 12 states as having a ``high hazard potential'' 
     rating should they fail.
       The Administration supports the development, 
     implementation, and enforcement of appropriate standards for 
     facilities managing coal ash, while encouraging the 
     beneficial use of this economically important material. Any 
     approach to managing coal ash would need to include: (1) 
     clear requirements that address the risks associated with the 
     coal ash disposal and management; (2) consideration of the 
     best science and data available; (3) adequate evaluation of 
     structural integrity; (4) protective solutions for existing 
     as well as new facilities; and (5) appropriate public 
     information and comment.
       Because H.R. 2273 is deficient in these areas and would 
     replace existing authorities with inadequate and 
     inappropriate minimum requirements, the Administration 
     opposes the bill.

  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  This has been a good discussion and a good debate. With regard to the 
State border issue in our opening statements and comments, what we 
highlighted was the fact that current Federal law applies to hazardous 
material. CERCLA still applies, and EPA air quality standards still 
apply. Those laws are still in effect across States. If they are having 
an impact, EPA has authority under CERCLA and under RCRA, with imminent 
and substantial endangerment, to take action to force a remedy and 
cleanup.
  So our debate has always been that that's covered. Let's try to 
address the impoundment issue, the leaching issue, some standards. The 
Municipal Solid Waste laws are very, very successful. I would argue, if 
you want to talk about toxicity, there are probably many more chemicals 
in a municipal solid waste landfill than the 7 to 12 that you mentioned 
in coal combustion residual; and out of the 80 tests, the standards are 
much lower than the toxic standard under this test.
  So this is a focus on jobs. This is a focus on recycling. That sector 
is being ravaged just by the threat. This is an important bill, and I 
am glad my colleague from West Virginia has brought this to this 
Chamber. It has been a great debate, and I look forward to the 
amendment discussion.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Chair, legitimate conversation and good-faith 
negotiations surrounding whether or not we can find a way to allow 
states to continue regulating coal ash seemed to bear fruit in the 
Energy and Commerce Committee for the first time in a while around 
here. So when we voted in July to send the Coal Residual Reuse and 
Management Act to the floor, I voted ``yes.'' I'm proud to say my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle and I have continued trying to 
find a workable solution on this issue.

[[Page 15614]]

  The concept behind this bill is good--in the face of uncertainty 
surrounding coal ash disposal and management, we could cut through the 
red tape and craft a bill that would require--for the first time--that 
all units receiving coal combustions residuals (CCRs) obtain a state-
issued permit that meets enforceable minimum federal requirements.
  At the mark-up I, along with other minority members, requested a 
Committee hearing before floor consideration so that we could examine 
more fully the potential impacts of the most recent changes to the 
bill. My goal was to reach an agreement on specific bill language that 
would clearly require all units to obtain a permit, and if the EPA 
found this permit to be deficient, to allow the EPA to work with states 
to bring their permit programs up to a standard that ensured protection 
of human health and environment.
  In the intervening time, negotiations continued, as you see with the 
Manager's Amendment introduced by my colleague Mr. Shimkus. I was 
encouraged by my conversations with friends on both sides of the aisle 
which reinforced that we share the same goals. In conversations with 
the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, the state 
body in Colorado responsible for managing CCRs, I learned that they 
supported H.R. 2273 because they believed it would allow them to 
continue with their strong program, and would raise standards in states 
with deficiencies. Yet the outstanding question, of whether any future 
EPA Administrator would have the authority to enforce the requirements 
we all seemed to agree should be in place, remains unanswered.
  We need more time to negotiate this bill, especially if anyone 
reasonably expects it to be passed in the Senate and signed into law by 
President Obama. I remained committed to the bipartisan process that 
brought this bill to this point, but cannot vote to approve of the 
bill's language for the following reasons.
  First, even with the changes in the Manager's Amendment, I cannot 
safely say that this bill would uphold a legal standard to protect 
human health and environment. This legal standard should be stated 
explicitly in the bill under the permit program specifications. 
Currently, under the Manager's Amendment, protection of public health 
and the environment is mentioned in reference to the revised criteria 
in the bill that originally applied to municipal solid waste. But a 
state permit program is not required to incorporate these revised 
criteria, and, furthermore, it is unclear whether the revised criteria 
would protect public health and the environment when applied to CCRs 
instead of municipal solid waste.
  Second, I believe this legislation should clearly describe when and 
how EPA can get involved if a state permit program does not uphold 
human health and environmental protections. As currently drafted, it is 
unclear whether the EPA could provide written notice and an opportunity 
to remedy deficiencies if a permit program does not meet specifications 
described under the revised criteria. In one subsection, the language 
implies the EPA could provide notice; yet in another section, the EPA 
is limited to evaluating the sufficiency of only the minimum 
requirements. Further, if a state chooses not to implement a permit 
program, the EPA can only design a program that enforces the minimum 
requirements, but not any of the revised criteria.
  Because this bill directly creates new regulation without expert 
guidance from the Administration, Congress must hold this language to 
an even stricter standard. I believe Colorado could operate a permit 
program under this proposed language that would protect human health 
and the environment, and I want to thank them for their good work and 
assistance on this issue. Unfortunately, I do not believe every state's 
permit program could be required to meet this basic requirement. I 
believe this is a bipartisan issue and that I can work through these 
differences with my friends across the aisle, but in this form I cannot 
support H.R. 2273, the Coal Combustion Residuals Reuse and Management 
Act.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 2273, the 
Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act, a bill which would prevent the 
EPA's burdensome regulations from drastically raising the price of 
electricity in my state of Florida. H.R. 2273 protects public health 
and the environment through the auspices of state run programs which 
safely regulate coal combustion residuals. As we have heard during the 
course of this debate, if the EPA is successful in classifying coal ash 
as a hazardous waste there is not only the potential of hundreds of 
thousands of jobs being lost, but also the likelihood that the cost of 
electricity will skyrocket. I know my constituents can't afford more 
hard times during this unprecedented economic downturn.
  I'm proud to report that in the Tampa Bay area a responsible partner 
is helping to preserve jobs, enhance public health and protect the 
environment--the Tampa Electric Company recycles nearly 98 percent of 
all coal combustion residuals--which is one of the highest recycling 
rates in the nation among large power generators. These CCRs are 
recycled into concrete, roof shingles, asphalt, wallboard and a number 
of other useful items. Rather than clogging up landfills, the CCRs 
provide a variety of benefits and jobs.
  I commend Tampa Electric for its good stewardship. Their recycling 
program has offset electricity costs over the past 19 years to the tune 
of $55 million. Let's pass H.R. 2273 to allow Tampa Electric and other 
companies nationwide to continue employing Americans, keeping energy 
costs low and protecting the environment by allowing CCRs to be managed 
as nonhazardous.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 2273, 
the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act.
  Once again, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, is on a path to 
destroy jobs, and increase costs on every American household. It is 
puzzling to see the EPA attempt to regulate coal combustion residuals, 
CCRs, as a hazardous waste, when the EPA, the Department of Energy, the 
Federal Highway Administration, the Department of Agriculture, the 
Electric Power Research Institute, state agencies, members of academia, 
and many others who have studied CCRs for nearly three decades 
concluded that coal ash does not warrant regulation as a hazardous 
waste.
  Under the Clinton Administration, the EPA determined that coal ash 
rarely, if ever, exhibits a hazardous waste characteristic. They 
ultimately concluded that states can safely manage coal ash under 
federal non-hazardous rules. Additionally, the EPA stated in its 2000 
regulatory determination that regulating coal ash as a hazardous waste 
would be environmentally counterproductive because it would 
unnecessarily stigmatize coal ash and impede its beneficial use for 
reducing greenhouse gases. If the EPA under the Clinton Administration 
concluded that moving forward with regulating CCRs as a hazardous waste 
would increase greenhouse gas emissions, then why are so many of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle supportive of the current 
Administration's actions? If I recall, we spent a good amount of time 
debating legislation in 2009 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
  In my home state of Wisconsin, this rule will have a significant 
impact on many different sectors. The concrete paving industry in 
Wisconsin uses coal ash on almost 100 percent of its projects. The use 
of coal ash enhances the performance and durability of concrete, which 
ultimately increases its lifespan. Additionally, given Wisconsin's cold 
winters, the use of coal ash in its concrete is even more important due 
to the reduction of the permeability of the concrete by 50-75 percent, 
allowing the concrete to better resist the freeze-thaw environment.
  This regulation will also significantly affect the electric utility 
industry. Instead of recycling the coal ash produced as a byproduct 
from coal-fired power plants, the industry will be forced to dispose of 
the ash in landfills, costing billions. This could potentially lead to 
the closing of a number of coal plants, creating serious reliability 
and cost concerns. Additionally, the increased costs to the utility 
sector will ultimately be passed along to the American consumer.
  The legislation before us is a commonsense approach to addressing 
coal ash. States are best able to determine the approach to regulating 
CCRs. While this legislation will set a federal baseline standard, 
states will be allowed to exceed these standards if they so choose. 
Additionally, this legislation assesses the structural integrity of 
land disposal sites, addressing the concerns that some may have with 
preventing another spill like that which occurred in 2008. I strongly 
support passage of H.R. 2273, and urge my colleagues to support this 
bill.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, coal-based power plants account for 
roughly one half of all electricity generation in the United States and 
produce about 135 million tons of coal combustion waste annually. This 
enormous waste stream contains toxins like arsenic, lead and mercury 
that can contaminate drinking water and threaten public health--which 
is why the EPA is in the process of developing regulations to ensure 
that it is either responsibly recycled or disposed of properly.
  Rather than letting EPA complete its work, H.R. 2273 directs each 
state to create its own coal waste management permitting program, 
without any legal standard to ensure a minimum level of public safety. 
Moreover, if a state decides not to enforce the standards it puts in 
its own permitting program, there is little EPA can do about it.

[[Page 15615]]

  Madam Chair, as the 2008 Kingston disaster demonstrated, coal ash is 
dangerous, inadequately regulated, and dispersed throughout the 
country. In order to protect the public health and avoid a regulatory 
race to the bottom, we as a nation must establish and enforce a minimum 
federal level of safety and protection for all of our citizens.
  This regulation takes us in precisely the opposite direction. 
Accordingly, I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chair, in December 2008 an impoundment holding 
disposed ash waste generated by the Tennessee Valley Authority broke 
open, creating a massive spill in Kingston, TN. The spill covered the 
surrounding land and Clinch River with one billion gallons of coal fly 
ash, displaced residents, and resulted in $1.2 billion in cleanup 
costs.
  The accident underscored the need for rules to ensure structural 
stability and safety of coal ash impoundments.
  In response, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed the first-
ever regulations to ensure the safe disposal and management of coal ash 
from coal-fired power plants under the nation's primary law for 
regulating solid waste, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 
RCRA.
  In June 2010, the EPA presented two regulatory options: regulating 
coal ash as hazardous waste under Subtitle C or regulating coal ash as 
a non-hazardous waste under Subtitle D. The EPA has not established a 
deadline for the final rule.
  I have serious concerns that designating fly ash as a hazardous 
material, the result of regulating coal ash under Subtitle C, could 
have major impacts on the recycling and reuse of fly ash to manufacture 
wallboard, roofing materials and bricks, and especially concrete.
  In 2008 alone, the concrete industry used 15.8 million tons of fly 
ash in the manufacturing of ready mixed concrete making it the most 
widely used supplemental cementing material. When combined with cement, 
fly ash improves the durability, strength, constructability, and 
economy of concrete.
  It also has huge environmental benefits. Using coal ash--and 
industrial byproduct--in concrete results in longer lasting structures 
and reduction in the amount of waste materials sent to landfills, raw 
materials extracted, energy required for production, and air emissions, 
including carbon dioxide.
  A ``hazardous'' designation of fly ash could put these benefits in 
jeopardy. It could make fly ash storage and transportation more 
expensive, and create a legal environment that would deter cement 
manufacturers from recycling fly ash in cement production.
  The result would not only be devastating for the cement manufacturing 
industry and American jobs, it could also divert millions of tons of 
coal fly ash from beneficial uses to surface impoundments like the one 
that broke open in Kingston, Tennessee.
  For these reasons, my preference is for EPA to regulate fly ash under 
Subtitle D of the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act. This would 
ensure we have strong regulations for surface impoundments of coal ash 
needed to protect public health and the environment without inhibiting 
the recycling and reuse of coal fly ash.
  It is also for these reasons that I am supporting H.R. 2273. The Coal 
Residuals Reuse and Management Act is not a perfect bill. In fact, this 
bill could have been much simpler and likely noncontroversial if my 
Republican colleagues had just legislated Subtitle D of RCRA. It is my 
hope that the U.S. Senate will take this more targeted approach.
  Nonetheless, H.R. 2273 does clarify that coal fly ash should not be 
regulated as a hazardous waste and establishes minimum state disposal 
requirements. In my state, this would mean the Oregon Department of 
Environmental Quality would develop appropriate rules for the handling 
of coal fly ash for the only coal plant in the state--PGE's Boardman 
Power Plant--and for the many Ready Mix Producers throughout Oregon 
that use coal fly ash as a necessary ingredient in the manufacturing of 
concrete.
  I support strong regulations for the disposal and storage of coal 
ash. But, these regulations can and should be completed without 
jeopardizing the recycling and reuse of fly ash. By voting for H.R. 
2273, I am voting in favor of moving forward with regulation and 
providing the EPA with needed direction.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Chair, it is absolutely untenable that there are 
currently no federally enforceable regulations specific to coal ash.
  This lack of federally enforceable safeguards is what led to the 
disaster in Tennessee, where a dam holding more than 1 billion gallons 
of toxic coal ash failed.
  This spill destroyed 300 acres, dozens of homes, killed fish and 
other wildlife, and poisoned the Emory and Clinch Rivers.
  Living near an unlined coal ash waste pond and drinking water 
contaminated with arsenic can be more dangerous than smoking a pack of 
cigarettes a day, according to a risk assessment done by the EPA.
  People living near unlined coal ash ponds where water is contaminated 
by arsenic and ash is mixed with coal refuse have an extremely high 
risk of cancer, up to 1 in 50.
  This is 2000 times greater than EPA's acceptable cancer risk.
  So, we can burn coal, creating sodium, thallium, mercury, boron, 
aluminum and arsenic which is pumped out of the factory and into the 
air.
  Or, we can stop stripping our land, polluting our air and waters and 
do what's right.
  The first step is to establish comprehensive, federally enforceable 
safeguards that protect human health, wildlife, and the environment.
  The measure we consider today fails to establish a national legal 
standard for coal ash.
  The bill also places significant limits on the ability of the EPA to 
conduct an independent review of state programs.
  When it comes to matters of public health there are no such things as 
good compromises.
  As Randy Ellis, a Republican and County Commissioner for Roane 
County, Tennessee, the county where the TVA spill happened, said 
earlier this week--the environment is truly a non-partisan issue.
  I stand here in opposition to this bill as neither a Democrat nor a 
politician, but someone who believes that this bill neither protects 
our public health, nor does it make our country better.
  I urge my colleagues to do what's right and oppose H.R. 2273.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Chair, I rise today to state my opposition to H.R. 
2273, the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act. On October 14, 2011, 
I inadvertently cast a vote in support of final passage of this 
measure. However, I am adamantly opposed to this legislation and want 
the Congressional Record to reflect my true sentiments.
  The EPA's proposed coal ash rule is a much needed response to an 
incident that occurred in 2008 in my home state of Tennessee. On 
December 22, 2008, a coal ash pond at the Tennessee Valley Authority's 
(TVA) Kingston power plant breached, spilling 1.2 billion gallons of 
coal ash and its contaminants--including arsenic, selenium, and 
mercury--into two rivers. The disaster moved homes off of their 
foundations, and the ongoing cleanup, which has only removed half of 
the coal ash that was spilled to date--is expected to cost about $1.2 
billion.
  The EPA coal ash rule would set standards in place to ensure that a 
horrific tragedy such as the Kingston spill never occurs again. 
However, H.R. 2273 would undercut the coal ash rule and create a 
dangerous plan consisting of nothing but ``guidelines'' for regulating 
coal ash--guidelines that do nothing to protect citizens throughout 
America from another Kingston spill. Despite the Kingston disaster and 
EPA's acknowledgement that wet ponds can pose as high as a 1-in-50 risk 
of cancer to nearby residents, this bill fails to take the obvious and 
necessary step of phasing out surface impoundments. Meaning if this 
legislation were adopted, it would do nothing to avert tragedies such 
as Kingston from occurring in the future.
  Another reason I oppose the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act 
is because it interrupts an EPA rulemaking process that has been 
ongoing for nearly three years and silences the concerns of the 
American people. Over the last three years, the EPA has held eight 
public hearings and received more than 455,000 public comments on its 
proposed coal ash rule--a precedential response to an EPA rulemaking. 
Congress should not be interfering and obstructing this critical public 
process.
  In an effort to prevent the passage of H.R. 2273, I circulated a Dear 
Colleague letter that informed my colleagues of the legislation's 
immense shortcomings and failures to protect the American people. I 
also offered an amendment, which unfortunately was not made in order, 
but would have required the EPA Administrator to revise the disposal 
criteria upon which the bill relies to ensure that human health and the 
environment are protected from the risks posed by coal combustion 
residuals.
  In some parts of the country people justify the status quo because 
they have not seen the full dangers of unregulated coal ash. In 
Tennessee we cannot ignore these consequences and cannot tolerate 
legislation that would usurp a beneficial rulemaking and replace it 
with legislation that fails to protect the American people. For these 
reasons, I oppose H.R. 2273 and would like the Record to reflect my 
strong opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in

[[Page 15616]]

the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of 
amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 2273

       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 ``Coal Residuals Reuse and 
     Management Act''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO SUBTITLE D OF THE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL 
                   ACT.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 6941 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 4011. MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL OF COAL COMBUSTION 
                   RESIDUALS.

       ``(a) State Permit Programs for Coal Combustion 
     Residuals.--Each State may adopt and implement a coal 
     combustion residuals permit program.
       ``(b) State Actions.--
       ``(1) Notification.--Not later than 6 months after the date 
     of enactment of this section (except as provided by the 
     deadline identified under subsection (d)(2)(B)), the Governor 
     of each State shall notify the Administrator, in writing, 
     whether such State will adopt and implement a coal combustion 
     residuals permit program.
       ``(2) Certification.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 36 months after the date 
     of enactment of this section (except as provided in 
     subsections (f)(1)(A) and (f)(1)(C)), in the case of a State 
     that has notified the Administrator that it will implement a 
     coal combustion residuals permit program, the head of the 
     lead State agency responsible for implementing the coal 
     combustion residuals permit program shall submit to the 
     Administrator a certification that such coal combustion 
     residuals permit program meets the specifications described 
     in subsection (c)(1).
       ``(B) Contents.--A certification submitted under this 
     paragraph shall include--
       ``(i) a letter identifying the lead State agency 
     responsible for implementing the coal combustion residuals 
     permit program, signed by the head of such agency;
       ``(ii) identification of any other State agencies involved 
     with the implementation of the coal combustion residuals 
     permit program;
       ``(iii) a narrative description that provides an 
     explanation of how the State will ensure that the coal 
     combustion residuals permit program meets the requirements of 
     this section;
       ``(iv) a legal certification that the State has, at the 
     time of certification, fully effective statutes, regulations, 
     or guidance necessary to implement a coal combustion 
     residuals permit program that meets the specifications 
     described in subsection (c)(1); and
       ``(v) copies of State statutes, regulations, and guidance 
     described in clause (iv).
       ``(3) Maintenance of 4005(c) or 3006 program.--In order to 
     adopt or implement a coal combustion residuals permit program 
     under this section (including pursuant to subsection (f)), 
     the State agency responsible for implementing a coal 
     combustion residuals permit program in a State shall maintain 
     an approved program under section 4005(c) or an authorized 
     program under section 3006.
       ``(c) Permit Program Specifications.--
       ``(1) Minimum requirements.--The specifications described 
     in this subsection for a coal combustion residuals permit 
     program are as follows:
       ``(A) The revised criteria described in paragraph (2) shall 
     apply to a coal combustion residuals permit program, except 
     as provided in paragraph (3).
       ``(B) Each structure shall be, in accordance with generally 
     accepted engineering standards for the structural integrity 
     of such structures, designed, constructed, and maintained to 
     provide for containment of the maximum volumes of coal 
     combustion residuals appropriate for the structure. If a 
     structure is determined by the head of the agency responsible 
     for implementing the coal combustion residuals permit program 
     to be deficient, the head of such agency has authority to 
     require action to correct the deficiency. If the identified 
     deficiency is not corrected, the head of such agency has 
     authority to require that the structure close in accordance 
     with subsection (h).
       ``(C) The coal combustion residuals permit program shall 
     apply the revised criteria promulgated pursuant to section 
     4010(c) for location, design, groundwater monitoring, 
     corrective action, financial assurance, closure and post-
     closure described in paragraph (2) and the specifications 
     described in this paragraph to surface impoundments.
       ``(D) Constituents for detection monitoring shall include 
     boron, chloride, conductivity, fluoride, pH, sulphate, 
     sulfide, and total dissolved solids.
       ``(E) If a structure that is classified as posing a high 
     hazard potential pursuant to the guidelines published by the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency entitled `Federal 
     Guidelines for Dam Safety: Hazard Potential Classification 
     System for Dams' (FEMA Publication Number 333) is determined 
     by the head of the agency responsible for implementing the 
     coal combustion residuals permit program to be deficient with 
     respect to the structural integrity requirement in 
     subparagraph (B), the head of such agency has authority to 
     require action to correct the deficiency. If the identified 
     deficiency is not corrected, the head of such agency has 
     authority to require that the structure close in accordance 
     with subsection (h).
       ``(F) New structures that first receive coal combustion 
     residuals after the date of enactment of this section shall 
     be constructed with a base located a minimum of two feet 
     above the upper limit of the natural water table.
       ``(G) In the case of a coal combustion residuals permit 
     program implemented by a State, the State has the authority 
     to inspect structures and implement and enforce such permit 
     program.
       ``(2) Revised criteria.--The revised criteria described in 
     this paragraph are--
       ``(A) the revised criteria for design, groundwater 
     monitoring, corrective action, closure, and post-closure, for 
     structures, including--
       ``(i) for new structures, and lateral expansions of 
     existing structures, that first receive coal combustion 
     residuals after the date of enactment of this section, the 
     revised criteria regarding design requirements described in 
     section 258.40 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations; and
       ``(ii) for all structures that receive coal combustion 
     residuals after the date of enactment of this section, the 
     revised criteria regarding groundwater monitoring 
     requirements described in subpart E of part 258 of title 40, 
     Code of Federal Regulations;
       ``(B) the revised criteria for location restrictions 
     described in--
       ``(i) for new structures, and lateral expansions of 
     existing structures, that first receive coal combustion 
     residuals after the date of enactment of this section, 
     sections 258.11 through 258.15 of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations; and
       ``(ii) for existing structures that receive coal combustion 
     residuals after the date of enactment of this section, 
     sections 258.11 and 258.15 of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations;
       ``(C) for all structures that receive coal combustion 
     residuals after the date of enactment of this section, the 
     revised criteria for air quality described in section 258.24 
     of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations; and
       ``(D) for all structures that receive coal combustion 
     residuals after the date of enactment of this section, the 
     revised criteria for financial assurance described in subpart 
     G of part 258 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations.
       ``(3) Applicability of certain requirements.--A State may 
     determine that one or more of the requirements of the revised 
     criteria described in paragraph (2) is not needed for the 
     management of coal combustion residuals in that State, and 
     may decline to apply such requirement as part of its coal 
     combustion residuals permit program. If a State declines to 
     apply a requirement under this paragraph, the State shall 
     include in the certification under subsection (b)(2) a 
     description of such requirement and the reasons such 
     requirement is not needed in the State. If the Administrator 
     determines that a State determination under this paragraph 
     does not accurately reflect the needs for the management of 
     coal combustion residuals in the State, the Administrator may 
     treat such State determination as a deficiency under 
     subsection (d).
       ``(d) Written Notice and Opportunity To Remedy.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall provide to a 
     State written notice and an opportunity to remedy 
     deficiencies in accordance with paragraph (2) if at any time 
     the State--
       ``(A) does not satisfy the notification requirement under 
     subsection (b)(1);
       ``(B) has not submitted a certification under subsection 
     (b)(2);
       ``(C) does not satisfy the maintenance requirement under 
     subsection (b)(3); or
       ``(D) is not implementing a coal combustion residuals 
     permit program that meets the specifications described in 
     subsection (c)(1).
       ``(2) Contents of notice; deadline for response.--A notice 
     provided under this subsection shall--
       ``(A) include findings of the Administrator detailing any 
     applicable deficiencies in--
       ``(i) compliance by the State with the notification 
     requirement under subsection (b)(1);
       ``(ii) compliance by the State with the certification 
     requirement under subsection (b)(2);
       ``(iii) compliance by the State with the maintenance 
     requirement under subsection (b)(3); and
       ``(iv) the State coal combustion residuals permit program 
     in meeting the specifications described in subsection (c)(1); 
     and
       ``(B) identify, in collaboration with the State, a 
     reasonable deadline, which shall be not sooner than 6 months 
     after the State receives the notice, by which the State shall 
     remedy the deficiencies detailed under subparagraph (A).
       ``(e) Implementation by Administrator.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall implement a coal 
     combustion residuals permit program for a State only in the 
     following circumstances:
       ``(A) If the Governor of such State notifies the 
     Administrator under subsection (b)(1) that such State will 
     not adopt and implement such a permit program.
       ``(B) If such State has received a notice under subsection 
     (d) and, after any review brought by the State under section 
     7006, fails, by the deadline identified in such notice under 
     subsection (d)(2)(B), to remedy the deficiencies detailed in 
     such notice under subsection (d)(2)(A).
       ``(C) If such State informs the Administrator, in writing, 
     that such State will no longer implement such a permit 
     program.
       ``(2) Requirements.--If the Administrator implements a coal 
     combustion residuals permit program for a State under 
     paragraph (1), such permit program shall consist of the 
     specifications described in subsection (c)(1).

[[Page 15617]]

       ``(3) Enforcement.--If the Administrator implements a coal 
     combustion residuals permit program for a State under 
     paragraph (1), the authorities referred to in section 
     4005(c)(2)(A) shall apply with respect to coal combustion 
     residuals and structures and the Administrator may use such 
     authorities to inspect, gather information, and enforce the 
     requirements of this section in the State.
       ``(f) State Control After Implementation by 
     Administrator.--
       ``(1) State control.--
       ``(A) New adoption and implementation by state.--For a 
     State for which the Administrator is implementing a coal 
     combustion residuals permit program under subsection 
     (e)(1)(A), the State may adopt and implement such a permit 
     program by--
       ``(i) notifying the Administrator that the State will adopt 
     and implement such a permit program;
       ``(ii) not later than 6 months after the date of such 
     notification, submitting to the Administrator a certification 
     under subsection (b)(2); and
       ``(iii) receiving from the Administrator--

       ``(I) a determination that the State coal combustion 
     residuals permit program meets the specifications described 
     in subsection (c)(1); and
       ``(II) a timeline for transition of control of the coal 
     combustion residuals permit program.

       ``(B) Remedying deficient permit program.--For a State for 
     which the Administrator is implementing a coal combustion 
     residuals permit program under subsection (e)(1)(B), the 
     State may adopt and implement such a permit program by--
       ``(i) remedying the deficiencies detailed in the notice 
     provided under subsection (d)(2)(A); and
       ``(ii) receiving from the Administrator--

       ``(I) a determination that the deficiencies detailed in 
     such notice have been remedied; and
       ``(II) a timeline for transition of control of the coal 
     combustion residuals permit program.

       ``(C) Resumption of implementation by state.--For a State 
     for which the Administrator is implementing a coal combustion 
     residuals permit program under subsection (e)(1)(C), the 
     State may adopt and implement such a permit program by--
       ``(i) notifying the Administrator that the State will adopt 
     and implement such a permit program;
       ``(ii) not later than 6 months after the date of such 
     notification, submitting to the Administrator a certification 
     under subsection (b)(2); and
       ``(iii) receiving from the Administrator--

       ``(I) a determination that the State coal combustion 
     residuals permit program meets the specifications described 
     in subsection (c)(1); and
       ``(II) a timeline for transition of control of the coal 
     combustion residuals permit program.

       ``(2) Review of determination.--
       ``(A) Determination required.--The Administrator shall make 
     a determination under paragraph (1) not later than 90 days 
     after the date on which the State submits a certification 
     under paragraph (1)(A)(ii) or (1)(C)(ii), or notifies the 
     Administrator that the deficiencies have been remedied 
     pursuant to paragraph (1)(B)(i), as applicable.
       ``(B) Review.--A State may obtain a review of a 
     determination by the Administrator under paragraph (1) as if 
     such determination was a final regulation for purposes of 
     section 7006.
       ``(3) Implementation during transition.--
       ``(A) Effect on actions and orders.--Actions taken or 
     orders issued pursuant to a coal combustion residuals permit 
     program shall remain in effect if--
       ``(i) a State takes control of its coal combustion 
     residuals permit program from the Administrator under 
     paragraph (1); or
       ``(ii) the Administrator takes control of a coal combustion 
     residuals permit program from a State under subsection (e).
       ``(B) Change in requirements.--Subparagraph (A) shall apply 
     to such actions and orders until such time as the 
     Administrator or the head of the lead State agency 
     responsible for implementing the coal combustion residuals 
     permit program, as applicable--
       ``(i) implements changes to the requirements of the coal 
     combustion residuals permit program with respect to the basis 
     for the action or order; or
       ``(ii) certifies the completion of a corrective action that 
     is the subject of the action or order.
       ``(4) Single permit program.--If a State adopts and 
     implements a coal combustion residuals permit program under 
     this subsection, the Administrator shall cease to implement 
     the permit program implemented under subsection (e) for such 
     State.
       ``(g) Effect on Determination Under 4005(c) or 3006.--The 
     Administrator shall not consider the implementation of a coal 
     combustion residuals permit program by the Administrator 
     under subsection (e) in making a determination of approval 
     for a permit program or other system of prior approval and 
     conditions under section 4005(c) or of authorization for a 
     program under section 3006.
       ``(h) Closure.--If it is determined, pursuant to a coal 
     combustion residuals permit program, that a structure should 
     close, the time period and method for the closure of such 
     structure shall be set forth, in a schedule, in a closure 
     plan that takes into account the nature and the site-specific 
     characteristics of the structure to be closed. In the case of 
     a surface impoundment, the closure plan shall require, at a 
     minimum, the removal of liquid and the stabilization of 
     remaining waste, as necessary to support the final cover.
       ``(i) Authority.--
       ``(1) State authority.--Nothing in this section shall 
     preclude or deny any right of any State to adopt or enforce 
     any regulation or requirement respecting coal combustion 
     residuals that is more stringent or broader in scope than a 
     regulation or requirement under this section.
       ``(2) Authority of the administrator.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subsection (e) of 
     this section and section 6005 of this title, the 
     Administrator shall, with respect to the regulation of coal 
     combustion residuals, defer to the States pursuant to this 
     section.
       ``(B) Imminent hazard.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to affect the authority of the Administrator under 
     section 7003 with respect to coal combustion residuals.
       ``(j) Mine Reclamation Activities.--A coal combustion 
     residuals permit program implemented under subsection (e) by 
     the Administrator shall not apply to the utilization, 
     placement, and storage of coal combustion residuals at 
     surface mining and reclamation operations.
       ``(k) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Coal combustion residuals.--The term `coal combustion 
     residuals' means--
       ``(A) the solid wastes listed in section 3001(b)(3)(A)(i), 
     including recoverable materials from such wastes;
       ``(B) coal combustion wastes that are co-managed with 
     wastes produced in conjunction with the combustion of coal, 
     provided that such wastes are not segregated and disposed of 
     separately from the coal combustion wastes and comprise a 
     relatively small proportion of the total wastes being 
     disposed in the structure;
       ``(C) fluidized bed combustion wastes;
       ``(D) wastes from the co-burning of coal with non-hazardous 
     secondary materials provided that coal makes up at least 50 
     percent of the total fuel burned; and
       ``(E) wastes from the co-burning of coal with materials 
     described in subparagraph (A) that are recovered from 
     monofills.
       ``(2) Coal combustion residuals permit program.--The term 
     `coal combustion residuals permit program' means a permit 
     program or other system of prior approval and conditions that 
     is adopted by or for a State for the management and disposal 
     of coal combustion residuals to the extent such activities 
     occur in structures in such State.
       ``(3) Structure.--The term `structure' means a landfill, 
     surface impoundment, or other land-based unit which may 
     receive coal combustion residuals.
       ``(4) Revised criteria.--The term `revised criteria' means 
     the criteria promulgated for municipal solid waste landfill 
     units under section 4004(a) and under section 1008(a)(3), as 
     revised under section 4010(c).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents contained 
     in section 1001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 4010 the 
     following:

``Sec. 4011. Management and disposal of coal combustion residuals.''.

     SEC. 3. 2000 REGULATORY DETERMINATION.

       Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, 
     shall be construed to alter in any manner the Environmental 
     Protection Agency's regulatory determination entitled 
     ``Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes from the 
     Combustion of Fossil Fuels'', published at 65 Fed. Reg. 32214 
     (May 22, 2000), that the fossil fuel combustion wastes 
     addressed in that determination do not warrant regulation 
     under subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 
     6921 et seq.).

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order 
except those printed in House Report 112-244. Each such amendment may 
be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member 
designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable 
for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and 
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Shimkus

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in House Report 112-244.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 5, line 2, strike the semicolon and insert the 
     following: ``, including a description of the State's--

       ``(I) process to inspect or otherwise determine compliance 
     with such permit program;
       ``(II) process to enforce the requirements of such permit 
     program; and
       ``(III) public participation process for the promulgation, 
     amendment, or repeal of regulations for, and the issuance of 
     permits under, such permit program;

       Page 5, line 5, strike ``, regulations, or guidance'' and 
     insert ``or regulations''.
       Page 5, beginning on line 9, strike ``, regulations, and 
     guidance'' and insert ``and regulations''.
       Page 6, line 13, insert ``according to a schedule 
     determined by such agency'' after ``correct the deficiency''.
       Page 6, line 14, insert ``according to such schedule'' 
     after ``is not corrected''.

[[Page 15618]]

       Page 6, line 21, insert a comma after ``assurance, 
     closure''.
       Beginning on page 7, line 1, strike subparagraph (D) and 
     redesignate subparagraphs (E) through (G) as subparagraphs 
     (D) through (F), respectively.
       Page 7, line 17, insert ``according to a schedule 
     determined by such agency'' before the period.
       Page 7, line 18, insert ``according to such schedule'' 
     before the comma.
       Page 8, after line 5, insert the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(G) In the case of a coal combustion residuals permit 
     program implemented by a State, the State has the authority 
     to address wind dispersal of dust from coal combustion 
     residuals by requiring dust control measures, as determined 
     appropriate by the head of the lead State agency responsible 
     for implementing the coal combustion residuals permit 
     program.
       Page 8, line 21, insert ``and corrective action'' after 
     ``groundwater monitoring''.
       Page 8, line 23, strike the semicolon and insert the 
     following: ``, except that, for the purposes of this 
     paragraph, such revised criteria shall also include--

       ``(I) for the purposes of detection monitoring, the 
     constituents boron, chloride, conductivity, fluoride, 
     mercury, pH, sulfate, sulfide, and total dissolved solids; 
     and
       ``(II) for the purposes of assessment monitoring, the 
     constituents aluminum, boron, chloride, fluoride, iron, 
     manganese, molybdenum, pH, sulfate, and total dissolved 
     solids;

       Page 9, line 16, strike ``; and'' and insert a semicolon.
       Page 9, line 21, strike the period and insert a semicolon.
       Page 9, after line 21, insert the following:
       ``(E) for all structures that receive coal combustion 
     residuals after the date of enactment of this section, the 
     revised criteria for surface water described in section 
     258.27 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations;
       ``(F) for all structures that receive coal combustion 
     residuals after the date of enactment of this section, the 
     revised criteria for recordkeeping described in section 
     258.29 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations;
       ``(G) for landfills and other land-based units, other than 
     surface impoundments, that receive coal combustion residuals 
     after the date of enactment of this section, the revised 
     criteria for run-on and run-off control systems described in 
     section 258.26 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations; and
       ``(H) for surface impoundments that receive coal combustion 
     residuals after the date of enactment of this section, the 
     revised criteria for run-off control systems described in 
     section 258.26(a)(2) of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.
       Page 17, line 23, strike ``, in a schedule,''.
       Page 17, line 24, insert ``that establishes a deadline for 
     completion and'' before ``that takes into account''.
       Page 18, after line 20, insert the following:
       ``(C) Technical and enforcement assistance only upon 
     request.--Upon request from the head of a lead State agency 
     that is implementing a coal combustion residuals permit 
     program, the Administrator may provide to such State agency 
     only the technical or enforcement assistance requested.
       ``(3) Citizen suits.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to affect the authority of a person to commence a 
     civil action in accordance with section 7002.
       Page 20, line 11, insert ``in accordance with the 
     requirement of such section that the criteria protect human 
     health and the environment'' after ``4010(c)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 431, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chairman, for the purpose of a colloquy, I would 
like to yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. McKINLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Before I agree to support the gentleman's amendment, I would like 
some clarification on one of the provisions it contains. It would amend 
the definition of ``revised criteria'' in the bill to read: ``The 
criteria promulgated for municipal solid waste landfill units . . . as 
revised under section 4010(c) in accordance with the requirement of 
such section that the criteria protect human health and the 
environment.''
  Does the gentleman's amendment open the door, even a sliver, to EPA 
promulgating coal ash regulations not otherwise authorized in this bill 
under the guise of protecting human health and the environment; or for 
EPA to use the language as an arbitrary yardstick by which to judge 
State programs?
  Mr. SHIMKUS. To my friend from West Virginia, my response is that it 
does not.
  My amendment keeps that door to EPA alternative regulation closed and 
locked. The language the gentleman cites merely references law that is 
already on the books, as you heard in the general debate. Section 
4010(c) of RCRA was enacted years ago to protect human health and the 
environment. My amendment merely clarifies that your bill does not 
change that.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Madam Chairman, the 4010(c) of RCRA also gives EPA 
authority to take into account the practicable capabilities of such 
facilities.
  Does the gentleman's amendment alter that authority in any way?
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Again to my colleague and friend from West Virginia, my 
amendment in no way reduces the administrator's authority to take into 
account facility capabilities. That authority is unchanged by both my 
amendment and your underlying bill.
  Mr. McKINLEY. With those clarifications, I will support the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  To be fair, this amendment does make a few positive changes to the 
legislation. It adds some requirements to recordkeeping, groundwater 
monitoring, and runoff controls. But as with the underlying bill, this 
amendment makes a lot of promises and it just doesn't deliver.
  Some of my colleagues believe they may have reached a major 
concession because this amendment adds a groundwater monitoring 
provision. And I'd agree, adequate detection and assessment monitoring 
is critically important to ensuring that when coal ash is disposed of 
we have the opportunity to protect groundwater from toxic 
contamination.
  But Members should be aware that this amendment moves all of the 
groundwater monitoring provisions from paragraph (c)(1) to paragraph 
(c)(2). The effect of this change is to allow any State to waive the 
groundwater monitoring requirements at their discretion.
  Fugitive dust has been talked about. This dust can pose a health risk 
because it is particulate matter that can lodge deep in the lungs and 
also because it can contain the toxic constituents of coal ash. The 
Republicans refused to include a provision to address this issue in 
committee. So some of my colleagues may be pleased that this amendment 
includes a provision that mentions fugitive dust from coal ash 
disposal.
  But this provision is almost a tautology. The provision merely states 
that the States have the authority to require dust control measures if 
the State determines it to be appropriate. The amendment does not 
require State permit programs to include dust controls. It does not 
provide authority for EPA to require dust controls when it is the 
implementing agency. If a State determines that nothing is appropriate, 
then nothing is required within that State.
  Like the underlying legislation, this amendment is long on 
appearances but short on substance. Most importantly, this amendment 
fails to make improvements where improvements are most necessary.
  First, the amendment fails to establish a legal standard that the 
coal ash permit program has to meet.
  Second, the manager's amendment fails to ensure the structural 
integrity of wet impoundments. The amendment makes clear that wet 
impoundments can be used to hold storm water by exempting them from 
run-on control requirements, but it falls short of requiring that they 
be designed to safely hold that storm water. EPA has concluded that 
this legislation excludes several key design requirements that relate 
to long-term structural stability of the surface impoundment.
  Third, the manager's amendment fails to ensure appropriate criteria 
for the disposal of coal ash. Rather than addressing the concerns 
raised by EPA about the agency's ability to revise and

[[Page 15619]]

tailor disposal criteria to address the risks posed by coal combustion 
residuals, the amendment further limits EPA's potential role in helping 
the State by preventing EPA from offering technical assistance to 
States without a request from the head of a lead State agency.
  And, lastly, the amendment does nothing to authorize meaningful 
review of State programs. EPA has raised extensive concerns about their 
ability to review State programs under this legislation to ensure 
protection of human health and the environment, and this amendment does 
not address those concerns.
  The administration has announced its opposition to the legislation, 
stating that this bill is ``insufficient to address the risks 
associated with coal ash disposal and management, and undermines the 
Federal Government's ability to ensure that requirements for management 
and disposal of coal combustion residuals are protective of human 
health and the environment.''
  Nothing in this amendment fixes those concerns. Madam Chair, I'm 
willing to accept this amendment. It doesn't address the problems with 
this bill, but it doesn't make the bill appreciably worse. So I 
wouldn't oppose the amendment, but I don't want people to think that 
this amendment lives up to the billing that it really makes this bill 
good enough.
  So I will not oppose it, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I appreciate the ranking member's accepting the 
amendment. We do think it improves the bill.
  I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene 
Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I thank the ranking member on our 
subcommittee for accepting the amendment.
  This amendment does make the bill better, but if we're looking for 
the perfect, you're in the wrong place. A legislative process is not 
where you get perfection. We come together. We compromise.
  This floor amendment by the ranking member actually makes the bill 
better than it was when it came out of committee, and I voted for it 
out of committee. So I'm glad he made it better with this amendment. 
But we'll never get perfection, whether it be the House, and I can 
guarantee, almost, not in the Senate.
  But this bill is better by this amendment, and that's why I encourage 
its adoption.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. 
Pearce) to speak in support of the bill.
  Mr. PEARCE. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the underlying bill, 
H.R. 2273.
  Basically, we hear a lot about the President asking: Where are the 
Republican plans for jobs?
  I could refer the President to the Western Caucus Jobs Frontier 
Report that was put out the same day as his speech on the floor that's 
got 40 pieces of legislation that would create exact jobs. But half the 
time we're in this body talking about jobs, we have to play defense; we 
have to keep the President from killing jobs, and that's basically what 
this bill does.
  The EPA is going to implement regulations which, for instance, will 
have an effect in the Four Corners plant near Grants, New Mexico. It's 
going to be forced to comply with regulations, not to noticeably 
improve the quality of our air, but simply new regulations. And the 
coal ash from that plant is shipped around the country. It's shipped to 
cement factories in New Mexico and California.
  As we shut off the ability to use this coal ash, then we're going to 
raise costs. We're going to create job-killing regulations that, in 
fact, are taking place across the country right now. If we look and 
break down the intent, really, there are several regulations that 
intend to kill coal mining in total. And so why don't we talk about the 
real intent of different regulations.
  We're shutting down electric generation right now. Last year we saw 
rolling blackouts. We saw the power outages in New Mexico, and yet one 
of our plants that generates electricity is having to shut down 60 
percent of its capacity.
  So these are the things that are killing jobs; the President is doing 
this bill. The underlying bill, H.R. 2273, simply pushes back on those 
regulations.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois has 15 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I want to again thank the ranking member for accepting 
this, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Waxman

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 112-244.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, after line 5, insert the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(H) The coal combustion residuals permit program contains 
     criteria necessary to protect human health and the 
     environment.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 431, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Waxman) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.

                              {time}  1210

  Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair.
  The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA, was passed to 
protect the public health and the environment from unsafe disposal of 
solid waste. It created duties reserved to the EPA and programs that 
could be delegated to the States. Like other environmental statutes, 
RCRA sets a legal standard of protectiveness for State-delegated 
programs. These standards are the yardstick by which it is determined 
whether a State's effort measures up, and they ensure our consistent 
level of effort and protection throughout the Nation.
  This approach has worked well because it prevents a race to the 
bottom among the States in which a State willing to have the laxest 
protections becomes the dumping ground for the Nation. Congress has 
taken this approach for 40 years. We create a Federal floor of 
protection and allow States to go further as necessary. H.R. 2273 turns 
this approach on its head by saying that each State must have a program 
but that program can offer as little protection as the State chooses. 
Well, that's essentially the status quo.
  The authors of this bill are attempting to model coal ash disposal on 
disposal of municipal solid waste. That's what they claim. In the case 
of municipal solid waste, however, the legal standard is that the 
program must protect human health and the environment from the risks 
associated with municipal solid waste. But under this bill, this 
standard does not apply to coal combustion residuals.
  If we want to hold State coal ash permit programs to that standard, 
the same standard to which State municipal solid waste permit programs 
are held, my amendment is the way to do it. Without this amendment, 
nothing in the bill ensures that permit programs, whether administered 
by the States or the EPA, will protect human health and the 
environment. They will not even have that as a goal.
  Under the existing language, a State could put in place an 
insufficient program, one that threatens human health, and so long as 
they follow the required certification, they will meet their legal 
requirements. There would be no way for the public, for affected 
communities, or for the EPA to intervene to ensure the necessary 
safeguards. If we adopt this amendment, State plans will have to 
protect human health and the environment from the risks of unsafe coal 
ash disposal.
  These are serious risks that this legislation should address. For 
example, groundwater has been contaminated from coal ash disposal in 
Virginia, South Carolina, Michigan, New York, Massachusetts, Indiana, 
North Dakota, and the list goes on. Fugitive dust from coal ash 
disposal has impacted neighboring communities; for instance, toxic

[[Page 15620]]

dust has blown through people's homes in Gambrills, Maryland, harming 
the respiratory health of the public, and risks from the catastrophic 
failure of wet impoundments as serious as we saw in Kingston, 
Tennessee.
  When EPA issued its proposed rules in June 2010, they cited more than 
two dozen proven cases of damage from coal ash disposal. Three of those 
sites are now on the national priority list for cleanup under 
Superfund, and the number of these incidents may be much higher. These 
risks are real and they are significant. If this legislation is going 
to address them, it needs to include a legal standard of 
protectiveness.
  If my amendment is adopted, State programs will be required to 
protect human health and the environment. And if a State refuses to do 
so, when EPA steps in, the agency will have to implement a program that 
protects public health and the environment. It's a simple amendment, 
but it's the difference between trying to protect health and the 
environment and trying to protect the status quo.
  I heard from my colleague and good friend from Texas saying the bill 
was better and the legislative process is not always to get to the 
perfect but to get a better bill. Well, it depends on what you consider 
good enough. This bill is not good enough. With this amendment, it will 
definitely be improved.
  But it's not good enough to vote for a bill because it's better than 
it was when it wasn't good enough then. It's better to vote ``no'' and 
say ``no'' to a bill that's not good enough so you can get a better 
bill. And I think in the other body we'll get a better bill if we are 
willing to vote against this bill, say ``no'' until we get not the 
perfect bill, but a much better bill than what the proponents of this 
bill are saying is good enough, because I don't accept that conclusion.
  I urge support for this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, I seek time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
  I appreciate the comments of my colleague from California because 
obviously there is a recognition that we have been talking, we have 
been trying to get some bipartisan support. As tough as that may seem 
in this Chamber and in this Congress, there is a recognition that we're 
trying. I think the ranking member gave us an ``atta boy'' just by 
allowing that voice vote on the manager's amendment, and I appreciate 
that.
  Part of this debate is that if States are allowing any type of waste 
to affect their constituents, don't you think that the States are going 
to get involved? If you use the Maryland example, Maryland has 
aggressively changed its own permitting processes based upon those 
experiences. So they've done it. Again, States are closer to their 
people. I can imagine the calls State reps and State senators got when 
that occurred. The basic bill says coal combustion residual which 
doesn't rise to the level of toxicity should be treated as that in 
liners and the like. That's really the debate we have.
  The EPA's technical assistance which was placed on the ranking 
member's committee's Web site mentions that this requirement could be 
implicitly inferred based upon the drafting of the bill. And I would 
just say on page 10, line 8, if the administrator determines that a 
State determination under this paragraph does not accurately reflect 
the needs for the management of coal combustion residuals in the State, 
the administrator may treat such State determination as a deficiency. 
And if it's a deficiency, then the EPA can then be involved.
  So we think that the issue that my colleague from California has 
raised has been addressed, and we look forward to debate of the further 
amendments.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Madam Chair, the amendment addressed issues 
of public health which are critical, but the amendment was too vague 
and likely redundant. Accordingly, and unusually, a ``present'' vote 
would be appropriate. At the time of the vote, I was dealing with two 
constituents, and their problems with Social Security and Post Office 
closure, and inadvertently missed the vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Markey

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in House Report 112-244.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chair, I rise as the designee to offer amendment 
No. 3, the Carney amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

        Page 8, after line 5, insert the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(H)(i) The coal combustion residuals permit program shall 
     require that--
       ``(I) each surface impoundment meet the requirements 
     applicable to existing and new structures under this section 
     by a deadline of the date that is 5 years after the date of 
     enactment of this section; and
       ``(II) each surface impoundment that does not meet all such 
     requirements by such deadline close in accordance with the 
     requirements of subsection (h).
       ``(ii) The head of the agency responsible for implementing 
     the coal combustion residuals permit program may extend the 
     deadline under clause (i) with respect to a surface 
     impoundment in 1-year increments upon a showing of good 
     cause, but in no case may the deadline be extended beyond the 
     date that is 10 years after the date of enactment of this 
     section.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 431, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank you.
  Just 3 days before Christmas in 2008, the coal ash impoundment--and 
``impoundment'' is just another word for giant swimming pool--burst in 
Kingston, Tennessee, releasing 1.1 billion gallons of toxic sludge that 
blanketed the nearby Emory River. That toxic stew that flowed out, a 
billion gallons into the river, destroyed homes and 300 acres of 
surrounding land, creating a Superfund site that could cost up to $1.2 
billion to remediate. Since this incident, the EPA has identified 49 
other giant pools of coal ash across the country that are designated as 
high hazard.

                              {time}  1220

  This means that if these impoundments were to fail, then it's not 
just the land that would be damaged, but human life would likely be 
lost.
  This Republican bill purports to be a solution to what happened in 
Tennessee. It claims to create standards for these giant pools that 
would ensure a TVA catastrophe won't happen again. But in fact it 
excludes safety requirements such as just accounting for earthquakes or 
surface erosion. And even worse, the very minimal requirements that are 
included in this bill only apply to new impoundments there are built 
starting 3 years after this bill is enacted. That's right. Nothing even 
starts for 3 years. And it's got to be brand new.
  So more than 430 impoundments that we know of and are in use today 
are not even going to be covered by this bill. And they have been built 
by old standards, not by the new standards. That's like finding a fatal 
flaw in a car that's on the road, but only requiring car companies to 
fix the ones that have not yet been built and won't even come on the 
road for 3 years. Or, like finding E. coli in chicken on grocery store 
shelves. But rather than issuing a recall today for the stuff that's on 
the shelves, they say there are rules that are going to go in place 3 
years from now so just let the contaminated poultry continue to be 
sold.
  This amendment is a simple fix to this problem. It would require all 
impoundments to meet minimal safety criteria in this Republican bill. 
Those

[[Page 15621]]

facilities that cannot meet basic requirements such as installing a 
liner so that this toxic coal sludge doesn't seep into the soil and the 
groundwater will have 10 years to close their doors.
  Unless this amendment is passed, disposal of coal ash in unlined, 
unsafe pits will be allowed to continue. In Missouri, there is an 
unlined impoundment that has been leaking more than 50,000 gallons of 
toxic liquid a day since 1992. It would not have to be fixed. Let me 
repeat that. Fifty-thousand gallons of toxic liquid a day since 1992 
has been leaking out of that toxic facility, and it wouldn't have to be 
fixed under that bill. What are you saying to the people in Missouri?
  In Princeton, Indiana, a wet coal ash impoundment built in an 
earthquake fault area discharged dangerous slurry when an earthquake 
struck nearby last year. The spill contaminated a national wildlife 
refuge with selenium. A wetland that is home to an endangered bird 
species had to be drained and 50 tons of fish had to be buried. This 
Republican bill would allow that impoundment to continue receiving coal 
ash as well.
  After the Kingston accident in 2008, the Tennessee Valley Authority 
approved a plan to voluntarily phase out all of their coal ash ponds in 
10 years and to eliminate high-risk storage facilities that pose a 
danger to people and property if they were to fail. If they can do it, 
shouldn't the other companies be able to do it as well?
  We shouldn't have to wait for another catastrophe like Kingston to 
happen before we require these basic safety measures to be employed at 
all coal ash ponds.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you.
  My friend from Massachusetts has great rhetorical skills, and I have 
finally made it to the big time where I can do it as managing a bill 
and addressing amendments.
  He wasn't on the floor when we talked about the letter from the 
Governor of Virginia, who admits that this bill is going to force the 
State of Virginia to do more. It's because of this bill, he says,--and 
I quoted it before--that will require effort to implement in Virginia, 
such as regulatory amendments for conformance, and notifying and 
seeking EPA approval.
  So here is the Governor saying, We support this bill, and we know 
we're going to have to do more.
  I think that's positive.
  We're talking about how H.R. 2273 already includes structural 
integrity requirements that would allow only those facilities that are 
operating in a protective manner to continue to operate. Moreover, EPA 
has just completed a nationwide evaluation--I'm sure you're going to be 
happy to hear this, Mr. Markey--and in this evaluation they said that 
they have found none, zero, zip of these impoundments to be unsafe.
  Now, that's our own EPA. And we're glad that they're out. They're now 
checking these impoundment areas. I think a lot of this is a result of 
moving this bill and having now at least a standard for liners. I think 
from our testimony in subcommittee, liners are important. Liners are 
what we do in municipal solid waste. Liners are what we should do with 
coal combustion residuals. Well, this bill ensures that we have liners 
in the coal combustion residual ponds and facilities.
  So I think it's a very exciting time. It protects jobs. It helps for, 
obviously, the recycling of this in the industry sector. It helps save 
jobs. I think the amendment only hurts the passage and movement of this 
bill.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Markey amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Markey

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in House Report 112-244.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 9, line 23, insert ``, after providing notice and 
     opportunity to comment to the public and the Administrator,'' 
     after ``may''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 431, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Madam Chair.
  Two weeks ago, scientists at a massive facility in Europe announced 
that they may have discovered a particle that travels faster than the 
speed of light--a discovery that would turn Einstein's theory of 
special relativity upside down, a discovery that, if true, would 
revolutionize the way we see the world. The news spurred a massive 
amount of interest. Headlines read: ``Back to the Future,'' and media 
stories even speculated on how this discovery could be exploited to 
enable real-life time travel.
  However, it seems Republicans have already figured out how to get 
around Einstein's theory, because today the House will vote on a piece 
of legislation that will blast us right back in time to the start of 
the Industrial Revolution. This bill says no matter what EPA learns 
about the sludge that comes out of coal-fired plants, no matter how 
high the concentrations of poisonous arsenic, mercury, or chromium, and 
no matter what EPA learns about how these materials find their way into 
our drinking water, EPA is forbidden to classify or regulate it as 
hazardous waste. EPA is forbidden to require that this toxic material 
be disposed of carefully.
  This bill turns a blind eye to evidence of known hazards and takes us 
back to the Dark Ages, to a time before science was valued and before 
advanced knowledge transformed society. It takes us back to an era when 
mercury and arsenic, major components of coal ash, were used to cure 
toothaches and clear up your complexion. It takes us back to an era 
where children were sent deep into the bowels of the Earth to rip coal 
from the mines and to die early deaths.
  The problem with continuing to push a 19th century technology like 
coal is that you then continue 19th century attitudes about public 
health and the environment. Instead of time travel through Einstein's 
theory of special relativity, Republicans are pushing to travel 
backwards in time to advance the coal industry's special interests.

                              {time}  1230

  While Republican efforts on time travel are unlikely to help us 
understand black holes, they will take us back to the era of black lung 
disease. Instead of allowing the coal industry and Republicans to 
transport our country's environmental and public health standards back 
to the era of Charles Dickens, we should hold these industries to 
great-er expectations.
  In December of 2008, hundreds of acres of land were buried in toxic 
sludge after a Tennessee Valley Authority coal ash containment pond 
collapsed in Tennessee, releasing 1.1 billion gallons of coal ash 
slurry, covering more than 300 acres of land in a gray poisonous muck, 
damaging homes and properties and tainting nearby rivers. The event 
was, quite literally, a poisonous lump of coal dumped on the nearby 
community just 3 days before Christmas.
  This Republican bill purports to be a solution to what happened in 
Tennessee. It claims to create standards for coal ash containment ponds 
that would ensure structural integrity, but

[[Page 15622]]

in fact it explicitly exempts those same coal ash ponds from key design 
requirements relating to their long-term stability.
  This bill claims that States have to set up a rigorous drinking water 
monitoring regime and dust controls, but in fact the bill has no legal 
or enforceable standard for these State programs. And even more, any 
State at any time can waive any of these minimal permitting 
requirements and they don't have to tell anyone. That's right. When it 
comes to constructing a gigantic containment pond in your backyard, a 
State can choose to opt out of the requirements of this bill and no 
one--not the public or the EPA--would ever even know. This is just 
plain wrong.
  We should not delegate this authority to the States and then turn 
around and let States hide behind a cloak of secrecy when making 
decisions about waste sites that may be hundreds of acres in size, 
receive millions of tons of waste, and which may be in operation for 
decades.
  My amendment is very simple. It says that before a State can waive 
even the minimal criteria that this bill requires, that the State must 
first notify the public and the EPA and offer the opportunity for 
public comment. That is the least that we have as a responsibility to 
the public.
  I urge an ``aye'' on the Markey amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
  A couple of things. The gentleman's well-meaning amendment requires 
public notice and comment, including from the administrator of the EPA, 
before the State submits its certification paperwork to the 
administrator of the EPA.
  There's confusion as to what this bill does. For the first time, 
States have to conform to the EPA standards. I read this before in 
another part of the debate on page 10. If the administrator 
determines--this is the administrator of the EPA. If the administrator 
determines that a State determination under this paragraph does not 
accurately reflect the need for the management of coal combustion 
residuals in the State, the administrator may treat such determination 
as deficient.
  So there's really no purpose for my colleague's amendment. The EPA 
has the ability to say good State program, bad State program. The 
Governor of Virginia says we're already going to have to do more than 
we do now because of this bill. And section 7004(b) of RCRA requires 
public participation.
  So part of our debate is: Why do we have to continue to put more laws 
on the books when those provisions are already covered under RCRA? 
Requires public participation in any enforcement of any regulation 
guideline, information, or program under this act, including at the 
Federal and State level. This requirement is not waived, it's not 
amended, it's not altered or affected under this piece of legislation. 
Those requirements under RCRA apply to H.R. 2273.
  The gentleman's amendment is unnecessary, it's duplicative, and I ask 
my colleagues to reject it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Rush

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in House Report 112-244.
  Mr. RUSH. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 18, after line 20, insert the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(C) Enforcement.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), if 
     the Administrator determines that a structure is in violation 
     of a State coal combustion residuals permit program under 
     this section, and the State has not taken appropriate action 
     to enforce such permit program with respect to such 
     structure, the Administrator may inspect such structure and 
     enforce the requirements of such permit program with respect 
     to such structure.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 431, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Rush) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. RUSH. Madam Chair, my amendment simply provides Federal 
enforcement authority so that if the EPA administrator determines that 
a structure is in violation of a State coal combustion residuals permit 
program and the State has not taken appropriate action to enforce such 
permit program with respect to such structure, the administrator may 
inspect such structure and enforce the requirements of such permit 
program.
  Madam Chair, as currently drafted, H.R. 2273 fails to require States 
to enforce their own permit requirements. The manager's amendment only 
requires States to describe their ``process to enforce,'' but there is 
no hint, no requirement, not a syllable to actually enforce 
regulations. This built-in loophole in H.R. 2273 does not require 
adequate State inspection of coal ash ponds and landfills, and it 
allows States to set up voluntary regulatory programs, which will 
clearly not ensure the safe design, the safe operation, and the cleanup 
of the Nation's many toxic coal ash disposal sites.
  Madam Chair, due to a well-noted case in my district of Crestwood, 
Illinois, where contaminated drinking water was piped into the homes of 
my constituents for over 20 years, between 1986 and 2007, without any 
intervention from either the State or Federal EPA agencies, I, for one, 
am very sensitive to this issue.
  Since the beginning of this current Congress, the Republican majority 
has been on a never-ending, nonstop, forever-and-ever crusade against 
the EPA and our Nation's environmental protection laws on behalf of a 
few industries and to the detriment of the public good. However, for 
many of my constituents, there is no greater role for Congress to play 
than to protect their lives, their livelihoods, the livelihoods of 
their children, and the lives of their children by ensuring that all 
American citizens have access to clean air and clean water.
  Madam Chair, I believe that it is a false choice to try to frame 
these tremendously important policy decisions under the paradigm of 
either clean air and water or jobs and employment. As leaders, it is 
our job, it is our responsibility to find the right balance when 
crafting legislation so that our constituents are not faced with these 
types of lose-lose situations and decisions.
  I believe that my amendment will go a long way in trying to make this 
legislation far more balanced so that, at the very least, we allow the 
Federal Government, our government, to serve as the last backstop for 
the American people against companies that will seek to skirt the law 
without regard for the families and communities these companies would 
do harm to.

                              {time}  1240

  Madam Chair, many of my constituents, they don't have the money. They 
don't have the influence that industry has. So they're counting on us, 
this Congress, their Congressional representatives, to protect their 
interests, to fight for them just as those who are fighting for the 
interest of a few corporations in this body are doing.
  In fact, Madam Chair, I want to end with a quote from a letter dated 
July 11 that my office received from a number of ordinary American 
families who live by coal ash dumps all across this country.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RUSH. I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment.


[[Page 15623]]


     Hon. Fred Upton,
     Chairman, House Energy and Commerce Committee, House of 
         Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Tomorrow, we understand that your 
     committee will vote on a bill that would leave oversight of 
     coal ash dumps to the states, and prevent EPA from taking 
     action against polluters who threaten Our groundwater. We 
     know Congress has already heard from industry lobbyists, big 
     contributors, and bureaucrats. But please hear our voices, 
     since we live near these dumps, and put up with their 
     pollution year after year.
       We know what it is like to suffer through the daily 
     onslaught of blowing ash, drink water from faucets 
     contaminated with ash leachate, and see our wetlands and 
     creeks poisoned with toxic metals like arsenic. We have 
     complained again and again about the endless noise, dust and 
     pollution from trucks dumping coal ash near us while we 
     become more stressed out or sick and the value of our 
     property plummets, with no real response from our states. Two 
     years ago, we were promised that the US Environmental 
     Protection Agency would finally set national standards to 
     clean up these sites, and close the most dangerous ones.
       Now we face legislation that would stop EPA in its tracks, 
     and replace real standards with state ``plans'' that 
     polluters could ignore without fear of enforcement by EPA. 
     After what is already known about the danger from storing 
     millions of tons of coal ash in unlined ponds, why would you 
     tie the government's hands from ever stopping this practice?
       Do our lives matter to you?
       Is protecting coal ash ``recycling'' more important than 
     our health or the quality of our water? Even those who 
     believe that cannot seriously argue that shielding leaking 
     dumps from EPA enforcement somehow makes recycling easier. 
     And ash mixed with other wastes in leaking ponds--now a 
     common practice--cannot be recycled at all.
       What will you accomplish by requiring federal and state 
     bureaucrats to review, and then approve, disapprove, and 
     reapprove state plans that can never actually be enforced by 
     EPA against polluters? If your own family's drinking water 
     was being contaminated, would you think haggling over 
     ``plans'' the right response?
       States have had decades to clean up these dumpsites, and 
     have done nothing--or next to nothing--as contamination has 
     spread, even after the TVA spill put the issue on the 
     national news. We know good, hard-working people in our state 
     agencies, but budget cuts, political pressure, the power of 
     local polluters, and the lack of any serious oversight or 
     enforcement from EPA make their job impossible.
       Put yourself in our place. Have you lived near a power 
     plant's landfill or ash pond like we or our neighbors do, and 
     found out that the water you and your children drink may be 
     unsafe to drink? How long would you want to wait for your 
     state agency to do something about the problem? Three years? 
     Five years? Ten? We have waited that long, and are waiting 
     still.
       As the Americans who live next to our nation's ash dumps, 
     our opinions should matter. These dumps should have permits 
     that we can comment on. We need the right to comment on a 
     solid waste plan. We should be able to object to any permit 
     or plan that threatens our lives and property, and the 
     government should be given a deadline to respond. Dumps that 
     contaminate groundwater should be closed, and the groundwater 
     cleaned up. And EPA should be able to crack down on 
     polluters--without having to wade through endless 
     ``planning''--or the bill you pass will mean nothing.
       As you consider this legislation, please don't forget about 
     us. We are not `against the coal industry.' We simply want 
     the laws that are supposed to protect people to be enforced. 
     We appreciate your time and consideration.
           Sincerely,
       Joe and Teresa Trotter, 117 South County Road 400 West, 
     Sullivan, IN 47882.
       George Adey, 4082 W Dunes Hwy, Michigan City, IN 46360.
       Terry Miller and Barbara Handley-Miller, 4649 David Court, 
     Bay City, MI 48706.
       Patrick Race, 1004 N. Sheridan, Bay City, MI 48708.
       Saleh and Hanadi Abu-Hussein, 8424 State Road 64, 
     Princeton, IN 47670.
       George Bink, 6125 E. County Line Rd., Racine, WI 53402.
       Vicki Kuzio and Shirley Stribling, 3888 W. Dunes Hwy, 
     Michigan City, IN 46360.
       Ron and Patricia Riley, 8329 W 175 N, Princeton, IN 47670.
       Daniel Brand, 5228 County Road A, Sheboygan Falls, WI 
     53085.
       Mike and Rachel Slunder, 8245 W 175 N, Princeton, IN 47670.
       Mary Tinsley, 325 Division St., Mount Carmel, IL 62863.
       Vicki Hodgson, 15466 N 2250 Boulevard, Allendale, IL 62410.
       Amy Bonsall, Labadie Environmental Organization, 4467 Boles 
     Road, Labadie, MO 63055.
       Cathy Schnur, 5337 Heatherfield Ct., Sheboygan, WI 53083.
       Norm and Jill Buchmann, 6508 Running Horse Road, Racine, WI 
     53402.
       Raymond and Yelissa Pfeiffer, 806 S Arbor St, Bay City, MI 
     48706.
       Barbara Hugier, 8741 Foley Road, Racine, WI 53402, Oak 
     Creek/Caledonia coal run power plant (WE).
       Michael and Martha Blann, 4919 W County Rd 25 N, Sullivan 
     IN 47882.
       George Bink, 6125 County Line Rd, Racine, WI 53402.
       Tammy Krapek, 1252 Williams Port Dr. #I, Westmont, IL 
     60559.
       Kent and Loukia Verhage, 41 E 8th St, Chicago, IL 60605, We 
     own a place in The Pines, 1709 Birch St, Michigan City, IN 
     46360.
       Sharon and Richard Fineman. 145 Doberman Road. Chester, WV 
     26034.
       Carrie and Keith Bodnar, 658 Johnsonville Road, Chester, WV 
     26034.
       Helen M. Bowen, 174 Red Dog Road, Georgetown, PA 15043.
       Gary and Kim Kuklish, 896 Narrows Road, LaBelle, PA 15450.
       Yma and Rudy Smith, 826 First Street, LaBelle, PA 15450.
       George and Colleen Markish, First Street, LaBelle, PA 
     15450.
       Carmen Smith, 725 Maxwell Avenue, LaBelle, PA 15450.
       Helen Byrd, Second Street, LaBelle, PA 15450.
       Roberta Evans, 823 First Street, LaBelle, PA 15450.
       Gary Craig, 174 Route 168, Midland, PA 15059.
       Jarrett F. Jamison, 1085 Fort Martin Road, Maidsville, WV 
     26541.
       Tracey Heinlein, 824 Old Mill Creek Road, Hookstown, PA 
     15050.
       Tom and Marcia Hughes, 956 State Route 168, Hookstown, PA 
     15050.
       Emuel and Mary Lou Byard, 727 Johnsonville Road, Chester, 
     WV 26034.
       Rosella Diaz, 174 Johnsonville Road, Chester, WV 26034.
       Monica Burkher, 6625 Kenmore Ave., Louisville, KY 40216, 
     Cane Run Plant, Louisville.
       James and Teresa Taylor, 2591 N 950W Owensville, IN 47665.
       Barb and John Reed, Sr., 611 Georgetown Road, Georgetown, 
     PA 15043.
       John Reed, Jr., 4699 Route 30, Georgetown, PA 15043.
       Tom and Norma Wilkinson, 242 Cullen Drive, Georgetown, PA 
     15043.
       Terry Stout, 240 Cullen Drive, Georgetown, PA 15043.
       Michael and Maryann Steffee, 325 South Main Street, Homer 
     City, PA 15748.
       James McGrath, P.O. Box 62,
       Eggleston, VA 24086.
       Debbie and Curt Havens, 1134 Pyramus Road, Chester, WV 
     26034.
       Marcy Carpenter, 268 Cullen Drive, Georgetown, PA 15043.
       Tyra Collins, 264 Cullen Drive, Georgetown, PA 15043,
       Kim and Larry Squires, 3204 US Route 30, Georgetown, PA 
     15043.
       Frank and Loretta Reed, 339 Temple Road, Georgetown, PA 
     15043.
       Fred and Glenna Bleigh, 430 Pole Cat Hollow Road, 
     Hookstown, PA 15050.
       Ray and Pam Reed, 444 Temple Road, Hookstown, PA 15050.
       Keith and Jolene Shoenberger, 214 Washington Street, P.O. 
     Box 6, Georgetown, PA 150.
       Robert and Betsy Springer, 3750 W Co. Rd., 100 S Sullivan, 
     IN 47882.
       Stephen and Karen Fox, Formerly of: 1317 Murrey Dr., 
     Chesapeake VA 23369, Current address: 3421 Cappahosic Rd., 
     Gloucester, VA 23061.
       Rhonda Kampmeyer, 145 Francis Drive, Georgetown, PA 15043.
       Cathy Titlinger, 29970 Co. Rd. 14, Lamar, CO 81052.
       Kathy Nelson, 661 Hill Road, Georgetown, PA 15043.
       Petra and Bryan Haynes Family, St. Albans, MO 63069.
       Dave and Gail Greeley Family, 674 Lewis and Clark Drive, 
     Labadie, MO 63055.
       Charlene Ward, Labadie, MO 63055.
       Don Meyer, 1510 Osage Lane, Labadie, MO 63055.
       Jeanette Andrews, 1928 Land of Promise Road, Chesapeake, VA 
     23322.
       Jasmine Flinn, 1928 Land of Promise Road, Chesapeake, VA 
     23322.

  Mr. McKINLEY. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Thank you.
  To my colleague from Illinois, as the sponsor of this particular 
legislation and one of just two engineers in Congress that are licensed 
or capable of designing these structures, I wanted to make certain that 
in the bill there is the language that you're concerned about; that we 
do have the ability--under page 6, if you've not read the bill yet. But 
it talks about how that's to be designed, constructed, and maintained 
under this language.
  So we have to make sure this bill, if we pass it, is going to be 
maintained and the State's going to look at it. If there's a violation 
of that, then the EPA can step in. Because please understand that we've 
got numbers of protections written into this bill. The

[[Page 15624]]

EPA enforcement inspection authority is already there.
  Under page 18, if you've read the rest of the bill, it talks about 
imminent hazard. They can step in at any time under imminent hazard and 
take control over this if they have a problem with it. There's also the 
provision for law enforcement.
  But, more importantly, if the EPA determines that a particular State 
coal combustion residual program is deficient--if it's deficient 
because of a lack of proper implementation, there are options available 
in the bill for the EPA to step in, administer, and enforce the program 
in that State.
  My colleague, this amendment, although well intended, is unnecessary. 
It's not about giving the EPA authority it does not have and will not 
have. It's another vote of no confidence in the State, while, at the 
same time, encouraging the EPA to meddle in State matters.
  Mr. RUSH. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McKINLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. RUSH. I want to thank the gentleman.
  I have read the bill. And under this bill, if a State fails to do an 
adequate job of enforcing this program there is only one remedy: EPA 
has to take over the entire program. And we all know that having EPA 
take over a State's program is unlikely and highly undesirable.
  My amendment creates an additional remedy for inadequate State 
enforcement that is more measured than taking over a State's program. 
It allows the EPA to enforce State requirements if a structure is in 
violation and the State isn't doing anything about it. Without this 
amendment, a State could fail to implement their program for coal ash 
disposal in a way that puts human health and the environment at risk, 
and there would be no discrete way for the EPA to intervene to provide 
the necessary safeguards.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Let me reclaim my time, if I could.
  Again, with all due respect, I think there are at least three 
components there that you're overlooking in your amendment. One is that 
these dams are designed by professional engineers that are stamping and 
maintaining and seen by contractors. They have to see that those dams 
are maintained, those structures. So there's not a threat.
  Second, you have the issue of imminent hazard under page 18. Please 
read the bill, and you'll see that they can step in at any time if they 
feel that there's a threat. They can step in and take care of that.
  And then there are other provisions in there that allow other people 
to file class actions or individual actions against this if they feel 
it's being violated. So we've got three protections already built into 
this bill to take care of the issue, which I agree you can be concerned 
about. But it's one thing we made sure was in this bill when it was 
drafted.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. RUSH. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
will be postponed.


          Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in House Report 112-244.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 4. STUDY.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 5 years after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency shall submit to Congress a 
     report containing the results of a study to determine the 
     long-term impacts of State coal combustion residuals permit 
     programs on human health and the environment.
       (b) Definition.--For the purposes of this section, the term 
     ``State coal combustion residuals permit program'' means a 
     coal combustion residuals permit program implemented by a 
     State under section 4011 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (as 
     added by this Act).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 431, the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the Chairwoman, and I thank the 
committee for its courtesies and the Rules Committee for their 
courtesies.
  It would seem unusual to have a poster that says ``Make It in 
America'' on this discussion. But I think I'll lay the groundwork that 
we have no angst against the assets and natural resources that are in 
this particular country generating opportunities for work. But what my 
friends, in putting forward this legislation on the other side of the 
aisle, are asking us to do is to take a, if you will, word action and 
simply quash the EPA; take a sledge hammer and sledge-hammer the EPA.
  And what we're saying is that there is a place for State regulations, 
and there is a place for the involvement of the Federal response.
  Let me give you the most potent example. In 2008, failure of a coal 
ash impoundment in Kingston, Tennessee, spilled more than 5 million 
cubic yards of coal ash and will require approximately $1.2 billion for 
cleanup. It is a stark reminder that we must have mutual involvement of 
the State and the Federal Government.
  Now, many of you may have seen the news clips on that story. I 
remember seeing a couple come out and look in utter amazement at the 
loss of their beautiful property and their home, wondering how they 
were going to recoup. We call that a natural disaster.
  But the point in this legislation, even as I believe that we have the 
opportunity to grow economies with knowing how to do things in the 
right way, is that there is a failure to recognize the importance of 
the health and the safety of the American people.
  My amendment is simply requiring the EPA to study the impact of these 
permits on our environment and health. This is a reasonable request, 
considering our use of coal generates 130 million tons of waste a year.
  The bad part about it is that the Federal Government, the President 
of the United States, who has introduced a jobs bill which cannot get 
an iota of attention here, is indicating that this bill will be vetoed 
because, in fact, what it wants to do is to leave everything to the 
State without cooperation.
  What I'm suggesting is, let's cooperate. And so my amendment says 
that the EPA will have a broad report containing the results of a study 
to determine a long-term impact of State coal combustion residuals 
permit programs on human health and the environment. It has nothing to 
do with shutdown, but it does have to do with saying that the EPA must 
have a role in the protection of the quality of life of all Americans.
  So, for example, they have a responsibility, as the States do, to 
take care of Tennesseans or Illinoisans or Texans who happen to be in 
Texas. But remember, folks, we live in America. Most of us don't want 
to secede from the Union, if you will, or the Nation, and we want the 
protection of the Federal Government.

                              {time}  1250

  That $1.2 billion involves the Federal Government in helping to clean 
up what was a disaster. My only point is that we are champions of Make 
It In America. We are champions. And on this poster, you will see a 
number of individuals--a hard hat, a teacher, and someone who is 
dealing with the health and safety of Americans. We are champions of 
this. That's why many of us want to vote on the American Jobs Act to 
create jobs for our teachers, our firefighters, and our law 
enforcement.
  But I would share with you that these are also Americans whose 
quality of life we have to protect. And while we're Making It In 
America, while

[[Page 15625]]

we're manufacturing, while we have the assets that this bill attempts 
to address, can we also respect the quality of life of our children and 
our seniors and those who suffer from respiratory ailments and 
individuals that are pregnant and newborns and toddlers who may be 
impacted by this particular issue? Kingston, Tennessee, is a Superfund 
location, as we speak, because of that terrible disaster.
  So I would ask my colleagues to support a simple amendment of 
cooperation. That cooperation is for the EPA study to assess the impact 
on not only those in a State, but on Americans. I believe that we're 
all in this together. We live in a great country, and we're all 
patriots.
  I might conclude my remarks by saying for those who are on the front 
lines fighting for us, they would like us to recognize that it is 
important to keep America great. America is great as we build, keep the 
quality of life that allows our citizens to thrive and prosper, protect 
our seniors, protect our children, protect those families and protect 
businesses as they continue to try and do what is right for the 
American people. Make It In America the right way. That means the EPA 
must be able to do its job as well.
  With that, I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment #4 to H.R. 2273, 
``Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act,'' as it requires the 
Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a study to determine the 
long-term impacts of State Coal Combustion Residuals Permit programs on 
human health and the environment.
  As the Representative of the 18th Congressional District, located in 
Houston, Texas, I understand the role that the coal industry plays in 
our economy and will continue to play in the future. As Houston is the 
Nation's energy capital. Our Nation needs a concrete and viable 
strategy for gaining independence from foreign energy sources.
  My amendment is simply requiring the EPA to study the impact of these 
permits on our environment and health. This is a reasonable request 
considering our use of coal generates 130 million tons of waste. Most 
of this waste consists of coal ash which is filled with many life-
threatening substances. The manner in which this coal ash is stored can 
have an extreme impact on the environment, public health and public 
safety. If this bill prevents the EPA from issuing regulations on this 
ash, then the EPA should at least be allowed to review the 
effectiveness of state level programs.
  I am well versed in the importance of addressing energy industry 
concerns. Houston is the fourth most populous city in the United 
States, and is home to nearly 3,500 energy companies and related firms. 
There is no denying the importance the energy industry has in creating 
jobs in Houston and across our Nation.
  We must not forget that the coal industry in the United States is 
responsible for producing nearly half of our Nation's electricity. At 
the same time we must balance environmental and public health concerns. 
I understand the need to put the hard-working people back to work, and 
I believe it can be done in compromise with the Environmental 
Protection Agency.
  Every industry has its share of risks. Industries that have a 
significant impact on the environment, health and safety of people 
living in the United States must meet high standards to ensure that 
public health and the environment are protected. The waste produced by 
the coal industry should not receive special treatment.
  Coal ash is the second largest industrial waste stream in the United 
States. Every year, over 130 million tons of coal ash is produced. This 
ash contains a significant list of cancer causing and neurotoxin 
chemicals including arsenic, lead, chromium, cadium and mercury. 
Remember mercury has possible ties to causing birth defects in pregnant 
women.
  This ash is stored in ponds and landfills around our Nation. Today, 
this bill is enabling states to attain permits in order to deal with 
this ash. It is important to remember that these byproducts can seep 
into our water and fly about our air. This cancer causing ash and we 
need to ensure that it is properly regulated.
  As it stands most states do not have regulations in place to keep 
coal ash, or as I would like to call it toxic ash, safely away from our 
air and our drinking water. When this ash is stored in dry, lined 
impoundments it is perfectly safe; however when this ash finds its way 
into the nearly 500 wet ponds across our Nation, there are serious 
risks poised to those living near those locations.
  I remember the Exxon Valdez oil spill and the BP oil spills. I was 
among the first voices calling for additional scrutiny and stiffening 
of safety measures. Well, in Kingston, Tennessee, the residents found 
up to a billion gallons of coal ash coating their community.
  The Kingston, Tennessee, coal ash spill was 100 times larger than the 
Exxon Valdez oil spill and 5 times larger than the BP Deepwater Horizon 
oil spill of 2010. In its volume it is the largest environmental 
disaster in the United States. It will require approximately $1.2 
billion for clean-up. We all pay when these sites fail. This 
legislation does not include any language to increase new safety 
standards. These decisions are all going to be done at the state level. 
When you think about this, remember the residents of Kingston, 
Tennessee.
  The Kingston disaster should cause each of us to take a look at how 
this coal ash is stored and managed. At least every three years since 
2002 there have been major breaks in coal ash ponds, this has resulted 
in millions of pounds of toxic sludge entering our waterways and 
thereby our drinking water sources.
  My amendment would require the EPA to study the long-term effects of 
these ponds and landfills on public health and the environment. It also 
requires that the EPA reports their findings to Congress.
  We must take the steps necessary to address this potentially 
dangerous hazard. I understand that coal ash can be stored safely, I 
just want to ensure that it is stored properly.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
  Let me thank my colleague for offering an amendment to the bill.
  A couple of things have been discussed during the debate. Obviously, 
she mentioned Kingston, Tennessee. What she has to remember is that was 
TVA. That was a government entity. That wasn't a natural disaster. That 
was a manmade disaster by a Federal Government, in essence, an agency.
  I've stated numerous times what this bill does. It sets a standard 
that the States have to comply with to get certified by the EPA. Of 
course, in that process, under Federal law currently and locally, there 
is an opportunity for comment.
  In addition, EPA, within the last week, announced that soon it will 
be seeking comments under the Notice of Data Availability, or what is 
referred to as NODA, on the adequacy of State programs--this would fall 
directly in this; that's why this amendment is duplicative--as well as 
the State's comments on EPA's proposed rule for coal ash.
  This NODA was not required by law and certainly was not the result of 
a statute. This is something that the agency is doing. While the study 
is found to be innocuous, it does have a cost to taxpayers and the 
agency, and so in that aspect.
  My colleague also is following this a little bit. The debate is coal 
ash, or fly ash, which is in impounded areas that we are now going to 
have some standards and liners, is used in recycling. It's used in road 
construction. It's used in building schools. The whole reason why we're 
here today is to ensure that the recycling sector can still do that if 
the EPA continues to label it as ``toxic,'' which does not meet the 
standard of a toxicity based upon an analysis.
  I love this, ``toxic sludge.'' You can pick up dirt, and there's 
toxic elements in the dirt. The question is: To what standard does it 
rise? And if it doesn't rise to the level of toxicity, then it's not 
considered. And that's what this debate is all about, allowing the 
recycling of this. And if we don't do this, all our landfills will be 
filled with coal ash, and then we'll have to build more landfills for 
municipal solid waste.
  So that's why I appreciate my colleague from West Virginia in this 
great piece of legislation. The administration has not issued a veto 
threat for this, and I expect it to be well received in the other 
Chamber once it moves over.
  With that, again, I ask my colleagues to reject the Jackson 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.

[[Page 15626]]


  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will 
be postponed.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 112-244 on 
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Waxman of California.
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Markey of Massachusetts.
  Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Markey of Massachusetts.
  Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Rush of Illinois.
  Amendment No. 6 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Waxman

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Waxman) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 171, 
noes 236, not voting 26, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 794]

                               AYES--171

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gibson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--236

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kelly
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--26

     Bachmann
     Bass (CA)
     Braley (IA)
     Coble
     Costello
     Ellison
     Flores
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gosar
     Johnson (IL)
     Jordan
     Kildee
     Lewis (CA)
     Lummis
     McIntyre
     Meeks
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Polis
     Reyes
     Slaughter
     Sullivan
     Wilson (FL)

                              {time}  1322

  Messrs. GRIFFITH of Virginia, POMPEO, HERGER, GRAVES of Georgia, 
DENHAM and FORTENBERRY changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. BARROW changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 794, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``present.''


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Markey

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Schock). The unfinished business is the demand 
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173, 
noes 231, not voting 29, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 795]

                               AYES--173

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez

[[Page 15627]]


     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--231

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jones
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--29

     Bachmann
     Bass (CA)
     Braley (IA)
     Coble
     Costello
     Ellison
     Flores
     Foxx
     Gallegly
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gonzalez
     Gosar
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     Lance
     Lewis (CA)
     McIntyre
     Meeks
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Peterson
     Polis
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Sullivan
     Wilson (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1327

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


                 Amendment No 4. Offered by Mr. Markey

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 185, 
noes 223, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 796]

                               AYES--185

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--223

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer

[[Page 15628]]


     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Bachmann
     Bass (CA)
     Braley (IA)
     Coble
     Costello
     Ellison
     Flores
     Gallegly
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gosar
     Jordan
     Kildee
     Lewis (CA)
     Lummis
     McIntyre
     Meeks
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Peterson
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Slaughter
     Sullivan
     Wilson (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 30 seconds remaining.

                              {time}  1330

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


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Rush

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Rush) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 164, 
noes 241, not voting 28, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 797]

                               AYES--164

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--241

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kelly
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--28

     Bachmann
     Bass (CA)
     Braley (IA)
     Cantor
     Cardoza
     Coble
     Cooper
     Costello
     Fattah
     Flores
     Gallegly
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gosar
     Jordan
     Kildee
     Lewis (CA)
     McIntyre
     Meeks
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Peterson
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Slaughter
     Sullivan
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)

                              {time}  1334

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chair, during rollcall vote No. 797 on H.R. 2273, 
I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``no'' when I should have voted 
``aye.''


          Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174, 
noes 235, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 798]

                               AYES--174

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings

[[Page 15629]]


     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--235

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kelly
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Bachmann
     Bass (CA)
     Braley (IA)
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Costello
     Flores
     Gallegly
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gosar
     Jordan
     Kildee
     Lewis (CA)
     McIntyre
     Meeks
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Peterson
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Slaughter
     Sullivan
     Wilson (FL)

                              {time}  1338

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Chaffetz) having assumed the chair, Mr. Schock, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2273) to 
amend subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act to facilitate recovery 
and beneficial use, and provide for the proper management and disposal, 
of materials generated by the combustion of coal and other fossil 
fuels, and, pursuant to House Resolution 431, reported the bill back to 
the House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

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

       Mr. Cicilline moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2273 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 the bill, add the following section:

     SEC. 4. LIFE SAVING WARNING SYSTEM FOR CATASTROPHIC 
                   IMPOUNDMENT FAILURE.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act (including the amendments made by this Act), the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall 
     require any person who owns or operates a surface impoundment 
     described in subsection (b) to equip such surface impoundment 
     with a sufficient system to monitor for, and notify persons 
     of, a potentially hazardous condition that could lead to 
     failure of the surface impoundment. In the event a 
     potentially hazardous condition develops that could lead to 
     such a failure, the person owning or operating such surface 
     impoundment shall immediately--
       (1) take action to eliminate the potentially hazardous 
     condition;
       (2) notify State and local first responders; and
       (3) notify, prepare to evacuate, and evacuate, if 
     necessary, local residents, personnel from the owner or 
     operator's property, and any other persons who may be 
     affected by the hazardous condition.
       (b) Surface Impoundments Described.--A surface impoundment 
     described in this subsection is a surface impoundment--
       (1) that is subject to a coal combustion residuals permit 
     program (as such term is defined in section 4011 of the Solid 
     Waste Disposal Act, as added by this Act); and
       (2) the failure or misoperation of which will probably 
     cause loss of human life.

  Mr. CICILLINE (during the reading). I ask unanimous consent to 
dispense with the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Rhode Island?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Rhode Island is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to this bill. 
It will obviously not result in any delay. Once this amendment is acted 
upon, we will immediately consider the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the people of the First Congressional District in Rhode 
Island, much like the men and women from districts and States across 
this country, sent me to Congress to focus on our most important 
priority as a Nation. That priority is getting people back to work and 
putting our economy

[[Page 15630]]

back on track. And yet here we are again, spending the time and energy 
of this Congress not focusing on creating jobs or reviving our economy, 
but instead we're spending the time and energy of this body with 
another piece of legislation that threatens our environment and fails 
to protect the health of our communities.
  If we're going to be forced by the Republican leadership to spend 
time in Congress considering legislation with the potential to 
devastate our environment and damage public health, then at the very 
least we should allow some semblance of common sense to prevail. At the 
very least, those of us in this Congress with a sense of responsibility 
for protecting the health and safety of our communities must impress 
upon others the inherent dangers in the legislation before us today, a 
bill that fails to set sufficient baseline standards for coal ash 
storage and disposal, which is why I'm offering a simple, 
straightforward amendment that could avert future tragedies, both human 
and environmental.
  While the underlying premise of this bill threatens the public safety 
and health of communities, and while the provisions in this legislation 
set insufficient standards to ensure the adequate protection of our 
environment and public health, I, like many of my colleagues, am a 
pragmatist. I fully understand that, despite my opposition to this 
bill, H.R. 2273, it's going to pass the House today. But as a former 
mayor, I take the public safety of my community and monitoring and 
preparing for and managing disasters very seriously.
  The key to this work, the element that saves lives and property, is 
early warning. Local communities cannot absorb all of this 
responsibility themselves. Operators and owners must do their part. And 
while I oppose this bill, it's indefensible to let this legislation 
proceed without including commonsense emergency preparedness 
provisions, which is exactly what this amendment will do.
  The 2008 coal ash impoundment failure in Kingston, Tennessee, spilled 
more than 5 million cubic yards of coal ash, and you can see it 
depicted in these photographs. Over 1 billion pounds of coal ash sludge 
swamped houses, filled rivers, and covered 300 acres of land. Three 
hundred acres of land covered in coal ash, a substance found to contain 
significant quantities of arsenic and other toxins.
  Nearly 4 years ago, a coal waste impoundment on Buffalo Creek in West 
Virginia burst, unleashing a wave of floods more than 15 feet high, 
traveling at a rate of about 7 feet per second. The wave struck the 
community living below the impoundment without warning. Within just a 
few hours, 125 people were dead--including 30 infants and young 
children--more than 1,000 injured, and 4,000 people were left homeless. 
Mining officials had been monitoring the rising water levels in the 
impoundment for 4 days before it burst and yet never informed the men, 
women, and children in harm's way. This amendment will help ensure 
these human tragedies and catastrophic environmental disasters never 
happen again.
  This amendment requires owners and operators of surface impoundments 
to equip their facilities with systems to monitor for potentially 
hazardous conditions that could lead to a failure of the impoundment. 
Further, should a potentially hazardous condition develop at surface 
impoundments, this straightforward, commonsense amendment will require 
owners and operators to take action to eliminate the hazardous 
condition, to notify first responders and take appropriate steps to 
notify and/or evacuate residents, personnel, and others who may be in 
harm's way.
  In the United States right now, there are 49 toxic waste ponds at 
risk of catastrophic failure, just like the one that devastated 
Kingston, Tennessee. Each year, the United States generates 130 million 
tons of coal ash. We need to be prepared.
  As the former mayor of Providence, which was the first municipality 
in the Nation to receive accreditation from the Emergency Management 
Accreditation Program, I understand the importance of preparedness and 
the responsibility that comes with it. Monitoring and early warning of 
potentially hazardous conditions save lives.
  We need to make certain that if this legislation passes, it includes 
these commonsense safeguards that will avert another tragedy and 
devastation. It's the responsibility of this body to protect the health 
and safety of the communities we serve and those affected by the 
legislation we pass.
  I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment and do all 
that we can to avoid this kind of disaster again.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion 
to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I do rise in opposition to the 
motion to recommit.
  On this bill there are two camps in this body: There are Members who 
want to stop using coal for energy production as soon as possible and 
switch to other alternative energy forms; and then there is the group 
that recognizes that coal supplies half of our Nation's electricity and 
that, whether we like it or not, it will continue to do so for a fairly 
long time, so we need to manage as best we can the residuals left over 
after that coal is burned.
  It's amazing what clever uses we have found for the coal ash that our 
power plants produce. Yes, it's used to strengthen concrete. In fact, 
the road builders report that road and bridge building costs will 
increase by $100 billion over the next 20 years if we stop using coal 
ash in concrete. In fact, the standard, believe it or not, for the 
California highway authority is concrete strengthened with coal ash. 
The best wallboard, roofing shingles, even bowling balls contain coal 
ash.
  But not all coal ash is beneficially used. That's why we need to make 
sure that what is disposed of will stay managed responsibly. Today 
States have a variety of standards for managing disposal of coal ash. 
The gentlelady from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) on our committee told us 
that her State finds uses for all of its coal ash. Other States have to 
deal with disposing of half or more of their coal ash.
  Mr. McKinley, the sponsor of this legislation, when he first joined 
our committee, he explained to us how the administration's proposals to 
regulate coal combustion residuals as though they are hazardous, were 
threatening the recycling industry. He asked us to support the bill to 
simply set those proposals aside.
  We held a hearing on the bill and we heard from a variety of 
witnesses--from recyclers, from power plant operators, environmental 
groups, and others. But among the most important witnesses was a lady 
who spoke for the officials in every one of our 50 States who run the 
State solid waste management programs. She had a better idea. 
Explaining that States govern solid waste under stringent Federal 
guidelines, she asked: Why not do the same with coal ash? We States, 
she said, all run our solid waste programs just fine and are careful to 
meet the Federal standards for two reasons: First, we want to protect 
human health and the environment; and, second, we don't want the EPA 
running our programs for us.
  So we rolled up our sleeves and drafted such a program--bipartisan, 
by the way. We started with the Federal municipal solid waste rules 
themselves and saw that most of those would apply very well to coal 
ash. Even the EPA said municipal solid waste laws are a good model for 
safe management of coal ash. After all, these laws protect us from 
everyday household trash that includes battery acid, mercury, paints, 
electronic parts, and who knows what else. But then we looked again and 
saw that there are different issues with coal ash, so we added some 
provisions to take those differences into account and make this bill 
even more protective.
  The result was the bill before us today that is endorsed by one of 
the broadest, most interesting coalitions that we've seen. The 
Environmental

[[Page 15631]]

Council of the States, the 50 heads of the State environmental 
departments from Maine to California, strongly endorses the bill. So do 
the recyclers. And every Member, I'll bet, has heard from at least one 
of them. So do the power plant operators, the coal producers, the 
manufacturers, the cement industry, the private sector labor unions, 
and, yes, certainly the folks who pay their electricity bill.
  So who's left out? Well, the opponents have really just one thing in 
common. They regret that coal is a big energy source, and they think 
that the sooner we can get off it, the better. They understand that to 
get there, you've got to stop the recycling first and then start 
regulating it as though it's hazardous. It's not.

                              {time}  1350

  Even Carol Browner said it's not. She said that in 1993, and she said 
that again in 2000.
  This bill is a new approach. It's Congress setting the standards and 
the States making sure that they are met, as the States know best how 
to do.
  I ask you to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and vote ``yes'' 
on final passage.
  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. CICILLINE. 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.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 172, 
nays 238, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 799]

                               YEAS--172

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--238

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Bachmann
     Bass (CA)
     Braley (IA)
     Coble
     Costello
     Flores
     Gallegly
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Jordan
     Kildee
     Lewis (CA)
     McIntyre
     Meeks
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Peterson
     Polis
     Sewell
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Sullivan
     Wilson (FL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1407

  Mr. BROOKS changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 267, 
noes 144, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 800]

                               AYES--267

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Clyburn
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher

[[Page 15632]]


     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--144

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Garamendi
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Keating
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Bachmann
     Bass (CA)
     Braley (IA)
     Coble
     Costello
     Flores
     Gallegly
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Jordan
     Kildee
     Lewis (CA)
     McIntyre
     Meeks
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Peterson
     Polis
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Sullivan
     Wilson (FL)

                              {time}  1414

  Ms. BROWN of Florida changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________