[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12424-12442]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            COAL RESIDUALS REUSE AND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2013

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 315 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. 2218.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) to preside 
over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  0917


                     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. 2218) to amend subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act to 
encourage recovery and beneficial use of coal combustion residuals and 
establish requirements for the proper management and disposal of coal 
combustion residuals that are protective of human health and the 
environment, with Mr. Bishop of Utah 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.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have spent much time talking about the need for 
Congress to consider jobs legislation. This is a piece of pro-jobs 
legislation. This bill is unique because it is also a pro-states' 
rights legislation and pro-environment legislation.
  But focusing on jobs for a minute, let me explain why a ``no'' vote 
is anti-jobs, placing anywhere from 39,000 to 316,000 jobs at risk at a 
time when we can least afford it.
  We are here because over 3 years ago the EPA put out three proposals 
on coal ash, including regulating coal ash as a hazardous waste. This 
caused massive uncertainty in the marketplace and created an 
unnecessary stigma on legitimate recycling of this product, and I have 
a piece of shingle that's made and produced by coal ash.
  And the States agree. As highlighted in a letter from the State of 
Michigan in support of H.R. 2218:

       Enactment would end the regulatory uncertainty that has 
     hindered our efforts to promote the beneficial use of coal 
     combustion residuals.

  EPA announced in litigation proceedings recently that it will not 
have a final coal ash rule before 2014. The fact that EPA continues to 
leave a ``hazardous waste'' designation on the table even though three 
decades of science and fact point the other way, that coal ash is not 
hazardous, it directly is contributing to the loss of current and 
future recycling.
  Coal ash is not an abstract substance. It is used in important 
infrastructure in this country. The American Coal Ash Association 
informed us that uncertainty in the marketplace caused by EPA's 
proposal to regulate coal ash as hazardous waste is diminishing their 
economic prospects down to just 40 percent of eligible coal wastes--and 
they support this bill.
  This bill establishes a solid framework for regulation of coal 
combustion residuals in a manner that is protective of human health and 
the environment, or the State environmental regulators--including the 
Environmental Council of States, ECOS, and the Association of State and 
Territorial Solid Waste Management officials--would not be endorsing 
this bill.
  Coal ash makes concrete stronger, more durable, and cheaper. A ``no'' 
vote against this bill means that you support less durable, more 
expensive highways, schools, and green buildings. Don't take my word 
for it. The American Road and Transportation Builders Association and 
many other road and bridge builders, and also the Building and 
Construction Trades Union, want this bill because they want high-
quality construction material for buildings, roads, and bridges.
  For Members concerned about wall board from China, coal ash is a 
stable, domestic source for wall board and will control costs. Don't 
take my word for it. The American Forest and Paper Association supports 
this bill.
  Mine workers across this country need a stable way of having 
America's energy future secured. This bill accomplishes that. Don't 
take my word for it. Ask the United Mine Workers, who supports this 
bill.
  Coal ash is recycled and used as a raw material in making cement. 
Voting ``no'' means you choose to put coal ash in landfills rather than 
putting it back into roads and building projects. Don't take my word 
for it. Organizations like Portland Cement Association, the Phoenix 
Cement Company, the Wisconsin Ready Mix Concrete Association, and the 
Washington Aggregates and Concrete Association all support this bill.
  A vote against this bill is a vote for prolonged regulatory 
uncertainty. A vote against this bill is a vote to increase costs on 
the Federal, State, and local governments and infrastructures. A vote 
against this bill is a vote to increase costs on all Americans and to 
dare unemployment to go even higher. A vote against this bill is a 
direct message to career State employees in States across this country 
that you do not trust them to do the right thing regarding regulation 
of coal ash.
  This bill is a pro-jobs, pro-environment, anti-bureaucracy bill. If 
you want progress instead of process, protection instead of politics, 
and jobs instead of continued uncertainty, vote for this bill.
  We find ourselves in this morass of regulatory uncertainty because of 
the existing approach to environmental regulation. This bill presents a 
new approach that will reduce the inefficiencies of the Federal 
rulemaking process by setting a national standard in the statute and 
charging the States with implementation.
  If you support protecting jobs and preserving states' rights, and if 
you trust your State environmental regulators to protect your 
communities, you need to support this bill and vote ``yes'' on final 
passage.
  With this, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Today, the House is considering legislation to block EPA from acting 
to ensure that toxic coal ash is safely disposed of. Coal ash is the 
result of the

[[Page 12425]]

coal that has been burned, and this coal ash needs to be disposed of.
  Now, what the Republicans who are suggesting this bill be adopted are 
suggesting is that we remove public health protections in order to 
allow polluting disposal sites to continue with business as usual. 
That's a little tough to justify. As we led up to today's debate, we've 
heard some outlandish justifications, and I just want to set the record 
straight.
  First of all, we've been told this is a states' rights bill because 
we need this legislation in order for the States to impose adequate 
regulation on dangerous coal ash disposal sites. Well, that's not true. 
The States can regulate coal ash disposal today and, in fact, many do. 
The problem is that many States are not doing a good job.
  For example, in Ohio, four coal ash disposal sites have serious 
groundwater contamination problems. The coal ash at these sites has 
contaminated groundwater with arsenic, mercury, and radioactive levels 
of materials higher than allowed under the Safe Drinking Water Act. 
Well, in total, EPA has identified 133 cases of groundwater and surface 
water contamination at coal ash disposal sites. All of this has 
occurred under existing law, where State laws can be effective and 
States can act. The problem is they're not all acting.
  Secondly, the proponents of this bill have argued that we have to 
pass this legislation to allow coal ash to be recycled. They argue that 
EPA wants to designate coal ash as ``hazardous.'' Well, that isn't what 
EPA proposed at all.
  They say that this designation would be a stigma on coal ash and 
would ensure there would no longer be any market for recycled coal ash, 
but that argument is just plain wrong. Hazardous labeling and 
restrictions on beneficial reuse are simply not at issue.
  When EPA issued its proposed coal ash rule, the agency offered a 
couple of alternatives. Neither of these proposals would involve 
labeling coal ash as ``hazardous.'' Quite frankly, even if it were 
designated ``hazardous,'' that doesn't mean it can't be reused. It can 
be reused.
  Third, we've been told that we must pass this legislation because 
it's a careful compromise from the version of the last Congress. Well, 
I'm not sure who was in that compromise because the bill is even worse 
than the bill from the last Congress. The Republicans have refused to 
work with the Democrats on the committee. There's no bipartisan coal 
ash bill in the Senate. And the administration has identified five 
problems with the bill that cause it to fall short of protecting human 
health and the environment.
  Let's focus on reality. This debate is not about a ``war on coal'' or 
putting a stigma on coal ash. It's not about whether State governments 
are inherently better than the Federal Government. It's not about job-
killing regulations. This debate is about whether or not we're going to 
allow coal ash disposal sites to contaminate our water supplies and 
threaten human health.
  If this bill is enacted, coal ash disposal sites will continue to 
pollute our groundwater; and once contamination is confirmed, well, 
this bill would allow it to continue for another 10 years--and do 
nothing. Then, after that, they might even continue it for another 
indefinite period of time. So it will continue to pollute groundwater, 
the water we drink, and our water supplies and our water sources.
  This bill says that a dump site that is contaminating groundwater 
today can pollute for 10 years--more arsenic, more mercury, more lead. 
Is that what Members of the House want to vote for? If the owners of 
the polluting structure can't control their contamination within 10 
years, this bill says States can give them even more time to keep 
polluting.
  New information released yesterday reveals that three-quarters of 
existing unlined coal ash impoundments do not have the space at their 
existing location to construct an additional disposal facility. Those 
facts practically guarantee that if this legislation were to be 
enacted, communities across the country--many of them poor and 
minority--will simply have to endure contaminated water, polluted air, 
and the risk of catastrophic dam failure. And why? For states' rights, 
where the States already have the rights? It's really for polluter 
rights. And polluters do not have and should not have a right to 
pollute our water supplies.
  This can be handled effectively through a serious piece of 
legislation that will make clear that public health protection must be 
enforced.
  I urge my colleagues to tune out the special interest misinformation 
that seeks to weaken our laws and prolong pollution, and oppose this 
legislation.
  No matter how you voted in the last Congress, this bill is worse; and 
I urge Members to vote against it today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleague to look at the 11 
additional changes that have been made in this bill versus the last 
bill and realize how much we have moved in the direction that he speaks 
of.
  I now yield 7 minutes to the author of the legislation from West 
Virginia (Mr. McKinley).
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2218.
  For 33 years, Congress has wrestled unproductively with how to deal 
with coal ash, an unavoidable byproduct of burning coal.

                              {time}  0930

  After countless hearings, meetings, and amendments, we come here 
today with a solution. Over the past 2\1/2\ years, we've listened to 
environmental organizations, industry, Senators, the States, the EPA.
  Now the bill has strong bipartisan support with Democrat cosponsors 
and a broad coalition of over 300 organizations and businesses, 
including State environmental officials, Governors, recyclers, 
manufacturers, coal miners, coal operators, and labor unions, just to 
name a few.
  If we don't act decisively, Congress will once again kick the can 
down the road. That would mean the status quo continues.
  At the Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing on the draft 
legislation earlier this year, EPA Assistant Administrator Mathy 
Stanislaus testified that States have the ability to ensure proper 
management disposal of coal ash under this legislation. At that 
hearing, my good friend from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, asked Mr. 
Stanislaus if the EPA was not opposed to this language in the bill. 
Stanislaus' response was, ``That is right.''
  Even the President has become engaged in this debate. The statement 
from the administration this past week noted they appreciate the 
efforts of the House and issued no veto threat; no opposition was 
expressed. That ought to tell you something.
  The opponents of this legislation should read the last sentence of 
the administration's statement:

       The administration would like to work with Congress . . . 
     to allow for development, implementation, and enforcement of 
     appropriate standards for managing coal combustion residuals, 
     while encouraging the beneficial use of this economically 
     important material.

  Let me show you what we are talking about here. This is a jar of fly 
ash. Every day, coal ash is produced in 48 of our 50 States across 
America. This is a national issue, not just one for coal States. Over 
140 million tons of coal ash are produced annually. Approximately 40 
percent of the material is recycled into everyday products used in 
households and the construction industry. The remaining 60 percent is 
disposed of in landfills.
  Now, 2218 deals separately with both of these issues. The first part 
deals with recycling. Early in the Obama administration, the EPA 
proposed a rule to declare coal ash as a hazardous material, despite 
the fact that under the Bill Clinton administration the EPA had already 
determined in 1993 and 2000 that coal ash was not hazardous. Let me 
repeat that. They've already said it's not hazardous.
  No industrialized nation in the world classifies fly ash as a 
hazardous material. Deeming it such would essentially destroy the 
ability to recycle coal ash, dramatically increase the cost of 
electricity, and crush hundreds of thousands of jobs across America.

[[Page 12426]]

  The United States already has a much lower rate of recycling than 
other countries. Europe recycles over 90 percent of the fly ash; China 
over 65; and Japan, 95 percent of their coal ash is recycled. We should 
be encouraging recycling, not standing in the way.
  The second part of the bill deals with processes for disposing of 
coal ash that is not recycled. This section has been significantly 
strengthened and provides for all new and existing landfills to be 
State-run, using the Federal law known as RCRA, which incorporates 
Federal standards and requirements for protecting ``human health and 
the environment.''
  RCRA's primary goals are to ``protect human health and the 
environment, to reduce the amount of waste generated, and to ensure 
that wastes are managed in an environmentally sound manner.''
  Consequently, under his bill, disposal requirements will require 
``composite liners, air quality and dust controls, groundwater 
protection standards, emergency action plans, corrective actions for 
deficiencies, inspections and structural stability.''
  Let me make it clear. If a landfill ever becomes deficient, it must 
be fixed--no ifs, ands, or buts. It is just that simple.
  For example, under the corrective action under section 4011, 
subsection (C)(2)(b):

       An owner/operator of a deficient facility is not relieved 
     of their obligation to develop alternative disposal 
     capability regardless of whether they have space available 
     onsite.

  For anyone to argue otherwise, perhaps they haven't read the bill.
  For the first time, there will be a uniform, national standard for 
disposal. Or Congress can do nothing--it can--just as it has been for 
the last 33 years. But I don't think we should continue with the status 
quo. Working in this bipartisan fashion we've made progress.
  After 30 years of debate, it is time for action. Our constituents 
deserve protection for their health and environment. This legislation 
makes it possible.
  We often hear Congress isn't voting on a jobs bill. Mr. Chairman, 
there is not a clear jobs bill that we are going to deal with in this 
Congress protecting 316,000 jobs across America and preventing utility 
bills to increase. We must protect these jobs.
  I encourage all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support 
this pro-health, pro-environment, and pro-jobs legislation.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the administration and I would like to work 
out a bill with the Republicans, but this bill has two problems. After 
all is said and done, there is no requirement that they protect public 
health and the environment. There's all sorts of language that says we 
want them to. But if the States don't do that, the second problem is 
there's no enforcement; there's nothing to make them do it.
  Now, if you have no real clear standard to protect public health and 
no enforcement to make sure public health is being protected, that's a 
bill that's asking for continuation of pollution of our groundwater 
supplies.
  We can work together and get a bill, but this administration has said 
it does not adequately protect public health and the environment; it 
doesn't address the real problems. Even some of the changes that they 
have made have made this bill worse. It is a bill that we should reject 
and then go back to the negotiating table.
  Mr. Chairman, at this point, I wish to yield 5 minutes to the ranking 
member of the subcommittee on the Energy and Commerce Committee, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  Mr. RUSH. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, here we go again with the Republicans spewing their 
shamelessly empty rhetoric concerning jobs. Jobs for the American 
people might be on their minds, jobs for the American people might be 
in their mouths, but jobs for the American people are not in their 
hearts.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
arguing that we need to weaken our environmental laws to create jobs. 
That's incredibly shortsighted. Do we really want to say to the 
American people that they must suffer contaminated groundwater, drink 
dirty water? Is that what we are saying?
  A study from Tufts University shows just the opposite. It's not a 
fight between jobs and clean environment, clean water, clean drinking 
water. The Tufts study says that we can create tens of thousands of new 
jobs by requiring safe disposal of coal ash.
  Ensuring that coal ash disposal sites protect human health and the 
environment will take work, will create jobs. It will take construction 
workers, equipment operators, and engineers to do this work. Let me add 
that this is not just makeshift work. These jobs will provide 
tremendous benefits to the communities in which they take place. But 
these jobs won't happen if we pass this atrocious bill. This bill 
simply preserves the status quo and keeps Americans out of work.
  Mr. Chairman, when it comes to protecting the public health and 
ensuring that all Americans have unhindered access to clean air, land, 
and water, I am very sensitive to the issue of ensuring that there are, 
at the very least, minimum State or Federal standards and that the U.S. 
EPA has the full authority to enforce those standards.
  Mr. Chairman, due to a 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 and the State of 
Illinois refused to intervene, I cannot support legislation that bars 
the U.S. EPA from enforcing State or Federal standards, as this 
atrocious, shameful bill does.
  Mr. Chairman, states' rights might mean States' inaction, as in the 
case of Crestwood, Illinois, where it was only the determined, 
courageous act of a citizen by the name of Tricia Krause, who had the 
courage to alert the media to this shameful act being committed by 
elected officials, those responsible for taking care of the public 
health and ensuring that the environment was safe and the water that in 
the morning and the evening during the day that they drank was safe. 
These officials, these local officials, had that responsibility, and 
they turned their backs on the people of the village of Crestwood.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. RUSH. Not only did they turn their backs, but the Illinois EPA, 
the State EPA, refused to even investigate this matter. I had to get 
the U.S. Justice Department and the U.S. EPA to end this atrocity.
  If this bill is ever enacted, it will bar the Federal Government, at 
the very least, from serving as the last backstop for the American 
people against polluters who would seek to skirt the law without regard 
to the families and communities that they would harm.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask that the people who are Members of this Congress 
who have a heart and a mind to not only put the American people back to 
work, but also to protect the environment, to resist this effort and 
vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I remind my colleagues that the 
administration has not issued a veto threat on this bill.
  I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. 
Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from West 
Virginia for his outstanding work on this legislation, and also to Mr. 
Shimkus, who is the chairman of the subcommittee, for his leadership on 
the issue.
  I do rise today in support of the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management 
Act of 2013. I am an original cosponsor on that legislation.
  Now, I think it comes as no surprise to anybody that this 
administration has declared their war on coal. You can listen to the 
comments that are coming out of the President and his advisers there at 
the White House. They've done everything in their power to shut down 
coal plants and to put American coal miners on the unemployment line.
  The EPA has targeted everything from existing coal-fired plants to 
new

[[Page 12427]]

plants, coal mining operations, and has been looking at labeling coal 
ash as a hazardous waste since 2010.

                              {time}  0945

  Now, unbeknownst to so many individuals and to so many of my 
constituents is the fact that the same coal ash that has been used 
safely to make--and get this--bricks, cement, asphalt, plastics, and is 
used as a filler in wood products is, all of a sudden, a hazardous 
waste.
  I would like the administration to explain to me if coal ash were a 
hazardous waste when they used TARP funding for shovel-ready projects 
to repair roads with asphalt containing--guess what--coal ash.
  Was coal ash a hazardous waste last winter when it was used in snow 
and ice control products to keep roads and pedestrians in Chicago safe? 
Or was coal ash a hazardous waste when it was used to build the EPA's 
new headquarters?
  While I am sure most of my constituents would like to label the EPA's 
headquarters as a Superfund site, I would say let's support this bill.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, if coal ash is reused, it is not a hazardous waste. If 
it is stored and leaks into our groundwater or into our drinking water, 
it can be very hazardous.
  The problem with the Republican bill is that it doesn't clearly state 
that public health must be protected, and when they state it, there is 
no clear enforcement. The EPA cannot be sure that the job is being 
done, and even citizens cannot file lawsuits to require it to be done. 
This is a special interest bill that does not serve the interests of 
the American people.
  I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman who is the ranking member of 
one of our energy subcommittees, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Tonko).
  Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentleman from California.
  Mr. Chair, once again, the House will consider a bill that will 
provide the States with what they already have--the authority to 
regulate the disposal of coal ash.
  H.R. 2218 also virtually eliminates any regulatory role for the 
Environmental Protection Agency. Although the bill's title suggests 
that it is about the beneficial reuse of coal combustion residuals, it 
has little, if anything, to do with promulgating that worthy goal.
  No one has disputed that it is preferable to reduce the amount of 
coal ash that ends up in disposal facilities. It saves money and 
lengthens the productive life of that disposal facility, and it means 
that a waste product is put to productive use in cement, in wallboard 
and in other products. All of those things happen now, and they will 
happen whether this bill passes or not. Actually, if the bill 
encouraged stronger standards for disposal, it would likely spur 
increased recycling--another opportunity squandered, in my opinion.
  So, if it is not about recycling, what is this bill about?
  It is about maintaining the status quo. The bill virtually ensures 
that deficient facilities will, indeed, remain deficient.
  What does that mean?
  It means that communities in States with weak programs and lax 
enforcement remain at risk.
  This bill does not set credible standards to ensure that public 
health and the environment are protected. Communities whose groundwater 
sources are known today to be contaminated by toxins leaching from 
unlined disposal ponds will have to wait at least 10 years before a 
State would have to act, and even then there are provisions for 
granting additional time for an operator to upgrade or repair a leaking 
facility. We know from recent experience that some of these facilities 
are structurally unsound. A breach in the dam in Kingston, Tennessee, 
in 2008, in eastern Wisconsin in 2011, and in Martins Creek, 
Pennsylvania, in 2005 all sent coal ash spilling out into waterways and 
onto the land.
  H.R. 2218 is not going to help us avoid adding accidents to this 
list. Very similar bills to this one passed the House several times in 
the last Congress. They failed to become law, and H.R. 2218, in my 
opinion, is going to follow that same path.
  Communities living in the shadows of these facilities deserve to be 
protected. There is no reason to allow deficient facilities to pollute 
our water and our air and to jeopardize the health of people in 
communities across this great Nation. We can do better. We should do 
better. My colleagues and I will offer several amendments this morning 
that, if adopted, would improve this bill. A better legislative effort 
could resolve the uncertainty surrounding this issue and, more 
importantly, could ensure that our citizens' health and safety are 
protected.
  We cannot afford more Kingstons. We do not have to. Without 
improvements, this legislation will proceed no further in the 
legislative process. Without improvements, it should not proceed any 
further. I oppose H.R. 2218 in its present form, and I encourage my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, let me remind my colleagues of some of the 
special interests: United Mine Workers of America, Building and 
Construction Trades, and the Transportation Workers of America.
  I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the full committee, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2218, the Coal Residuals Reuse 
and Management Act, an important and bipartisan jobs bill.
  Mr. Chairman, today's vote is the culmination of over a 2-year 
pursuit of a thoughtful, sensible and transparent solution to a serious 
regulatory challenge; and while the coal ash bill has continued to 
improve since we first debated and passed the legislation back in 2011, 
we have stayed true to our original principles.
  First, the bill sets out strict standards for coal ash management, 
but it leaves the permitting program to the States. This approach is 
important because it ensures consistent environmental protection but 
gives the day-to-day implementation to the States, which have the 
combination of expertise and dedication to get the job done right for 
their States.
  Second, it takes EPA's 3-year-old proposal to regulate coal ash as a 
hazardous waste off the table. When EPA first published this proposal, 
it knew that it had overreached, but EPA faced a very tough dilemma. It 
wanted a permit program for coal ash, but, in fact, the Solid Waste 
Disposal Act did not give EPA the authority over coal ash unless it 
were labeled ``hazardous.'' This legislation offers a solution.
  The administration has stopped asking for the ``hazardous'' 
designation--and good thing. Beginning this year, EPA stopped seeking 
that the Agency, instead of the States, do the permitting. The 
administration has come a long way, and we certainly commend it for 
that, but, meanwhile, we've been listening to and working with EPA.
  On April 11 of this year, EPA testified before our committee. By 
moving past the notion that EPA should write regulations for each 
State, the administration finally acknowledged that the States are in 
the best position to implement coal ash permit programs. After our 
hearing, we had additional meetings with EPA to discuss the bill, and 
we ultimately made changes that EPA recommended, including adding tough 
deadlines for State action.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. UPTON. This is how the legislative process is supposed to work. 
The bill reflects crucial input over the last 2 years from House and 
Senate Republicans, Democrats and the administration.
  The time has come to put our pencils down and enact this law so that 
we can close the regulatory gap. States, utilities, and hundreds of 
thousands of workers in the recycling industry have been waiting in 
limbo for a resolution. This bill meets those needs, and I urge a 
``yes'' vote.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is left 
on both sides.

[[Page 12428]]

  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 13 minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from Illinois has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a member who has been 
very helpful on this legislation, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).
  Mr. LATTA. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  I rise today, Mr. Chairman, in support of the Coal Residuals Reuse 
and Management Act.
  Designating coal ash as a hazardous waste, which the EPA proposed in 
June 2010, would not only raise energy prices for families and 
businesses, but it would also destroy a large coal ash recycling 
industry and all of the jobs that go with it. H.R. 2218 will protect 
these jobs by setting minimum Federal standards that the States will be 
charged with implementing and by providing regulatory certainty that 
has ceased to exist within the coal ash industry since 2009.
  If this legislation is not 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 
require a ``hazardous waste'' designation. In fact, in the EPA's May 
2000 regulatory determination, the EPA 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 and $450 per ton as 
opposed to about $100 per ton under the current system. In 2008, 136 
million tons of coal ash were generated. That means not passing this 
bill could put an additional $20- to $47 billion burden on the 
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. 
Designating coal ash as a hazardous waste could halt these beneficial 
uses, which the EPA estimates will lead to $16.7 billion in increased 
costs per year.
  It will provide certainty in the coal ash industry, and it strikes 
the appropriate balance of strong environmental protection without all 
of the economic consequences of a ``hazardous waste'' designation. I 
urge support of the legislation.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a very distinguished 
member of our committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I would like to thank the ranking member for 
allowing me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support for H.R. 2218, the 
Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act.
  Last Congress, this Chamber twice passed legislation on a bipartisan 
basis that was weaker than the bill before us today. Last Congress, the 
effort resulted in legislation that would create a State-run waste 
disposal program with minimal Federal requirements while assuring that 
coal ash can continue to be reused and recycled in everyday products.
  The legislation before the House today continues that model but with 
even greater environmental protections, including: accelerated 
requirements for groundwater monitoring; fixed deadlines for when 
problems at an impoundment must be cured; and periodic inspections for 
the structural integrity of impoundments.
  Currently, there is a patchwork of State programs to regulate the 
disposal of coal combustion waste with no Federal oversight.
  H.R. 2218 would for the first time establish comprehensive, minimum 
Federal standards for coal ash management and disposal and give EPA the 
authority to enforce compliance if a State does not establish a coal 
residuals permit program or if a State's program does not conform to 
Federal requirements.
  This legislation would assure that coal ash can continue to be reused 
beneficially, which puts billions of dollars in our economy annually 
and protects tens of thousands of jobs in the beneficial reuse 
industry. Encouraging the beneficial reuse of coal ash ensures that 
less of it ends up in landfills, which is good for the environment and 
good for our economy.
  I know some Members have concerns about the legislation, but we have 
worked diligently with the majority and stakeholders to make 
improvements in the bill. The assertions by some of my colleagues that 
this legislation does nothing to protect the environment are making the 
perfect the enemy of the good. Part of legislating is moving the ball 
forward, and we cannot continue to work on legislation that simply will 
die in the Senate. This bill is a reasonable compromise and a win-win 
for the American people, as it will help protect the environment and 
create jobs. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, before I yield back my time, I want to 
point out to my colleagues that this bill will not make it into law. 
The Senate will not accept it, and the President will not support it in 
its present form because it doesn't protect public health.
  Coal ash contains arsenic, barium, cadmium, lead, mercury, hexavalent 
chromium, and other toxic materials. It's a threat, not when the coal 
ash is used for other purposes, but when it's in a disposal site and 
leaks into our drinking water, and that's what this issue is all about.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I want to thank my colleague from Texas, who has helped 
us move the bill forward.
  I would remind my colleagues that the President has not issued a veto 
signal on this piece of legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague from 
Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for 
the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act.
  I want to thank Mr. McKinley and his staff for their hard work on 
this very important issue.
  This commonsense legislation will empower States to safely regulate 
coal combustion products by fixed standards without overwhelming State 
budgets or customers' wallets. The recycling and reuse of coal 
combustion products has great economic and environmental benefits--
creating jobs, reducing emissions, extending the life and durability of 
the Nation's roads and bridges, and reducing deposits in landfills and 
surface impoundments.
  This legislation will provide the certainty States, utilities, and 
businesses depend on, all while giving the EPA the authority to protect 
the public should a State fail to enforce these strong standards.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), a neighbor to my congressional district.
  Mr. BUCSHON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this 
legislation.
  Every single coal mine in the State of Indiana is in my congressional 
district. Coal not only provides thousands of jobs for Hoosiers, but 
provides over 90 percent of our State's energy. Coal is a vital part of 
Indiana's economy, helping to keep energy prices low and supporting a 
robust manufacturing sector.
  I disagree with the EPA's position that coal ash should be treated as 
a hazardous material. Coal ash has been used in all kinds of other 
materials like concrete and has been proven safe when used correctly 
and when stored correctly. In fact, the EPA's own studies, as has also 
been mentioned, in 1993 and 2000 have stated that coal ash is not a 
hazardous material. This legislation allows States to establish their 
own regulations for managing coal ash as long as it meets minimum 
Federal standards.

[[Page 12429]]

  Coal is necessary for an all-of-the-above energy plan and is vital to 
our Nation's energy production that sustains good-paying jobs, and I 
urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, the Indiana Department of Environmental 
Management wrote a letter in support of this bill and its safety and 
protection.
  Now I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2218.
  I heard some comments today about coal ash. Let me be very clear: 
coal ash maybe at one point was energetic, but the coal ash we're 
discussing here today is inert. It's a lot like dirt, to be quite 
honest. As a cochair of the Congressional Cement Caucus, I have the 
largest cement producing district in America.
  The cement and concrete folks, the industry, is by far the Nation's 
largest recycler of coal combustion residuals, or CCRs or coal ash as 
it's better known. Each year, more than 11 million tons of coal ash is 
recycled in the production of concrete. So this is essential to our 
manufacturing sector. Domestic manufacturers typically reuse an 
additional 3 million tons of coal ash annually as a raw material in 
cement production. The coal ash used in the process serves as a 
substitute for key ingredients in cement, which would otherwise be 
mined.
  Without H.R. 2218, the EPA would be able to classify coal ash as a 
hazardous material, which in turn would put an end to this very useful 
recycling. Even the continued regulatory uncertainty generated by the 
stalled EPA rulemaking would dramatically inhibit the recycling of coal 
ash in domestic cement and concrete production.
  This recycling includes all kinds of infrastructure products, 
including our roads, bridges, homes, schools, and other critical 
structures. Coal ash continues to be recycled in a safe and responsible 
manner. Whatever issues there have been with coal ash, they have 
largely been related to storage. This bill thoroughly addresses coal 
ash storage issues, which is really where we should be focused.
  Again, H.R. 2218 provides the clarity needed by top recyclers to 
continue their efforts and to potentially increase coal ash recycling. 
So, again, I ask my colleagues to support passage of this important 
piece of legislation that will ensure the beneficial reuse of coal ash. 
A ``yes'' vote is the right vote. It is pro-manufacturing. Vote for the 
legislation.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  When coal ash is recycled, it is not a waste; and, therefore, EPA has 
no jurisdiction. It is not a problem. When coal ash is put into a 
landfill or disposal site and leaches into the water, then it is a 
problem. This bill doesn't address that problem. It doesn't adequately 
ensure protection of the public health; or if they have a law at the 
State level that seems to talk about public health, there's no clear 
enforcement of it. That is our problem with the legislation.
  Recycling coal ash for any purpose doesn't make it hazardous, doesn't 
make it toxic. It can be reused, and we want to encourage that. But we 
don't want public health threatened. That's what our concern is all 
about.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, to my colleague from California, we're 
waiting for a few Members. I'm not sure they are going to get here. I'm 
willing to have you close, and then I'll close after you're finished.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Knowing that we want to wrap up this general debate, I 
yield myself the balance of my time.
  I will just repeat that the EPA proposed to act, and that is what has 
caused this whole furor. Rather than to discuss what is the appropriate 
balance between the EPA and the States, the Republican bill would take 
this away from EPA, keep them from regulating, and turn it over to the 
States, where the States can already act and many have. They don't need 
us to give them the power to act. This bill says it's up to the States. 
It doesn't have a uniform standard of protecting public health. It 
doesn't require States to have the goal of protecting the public 
health. And if the States achieve the goal in their legislation to 
protect public health, there's no guarantee of it being enforced 
because EPA cannot come back in and enforce the State law and citizens 
cannot file lawsuits. That's one of the so-called ``improvements'' that 
has been made since the last time this bill was before us. It has 
weakened the ability to enforce protection of public health.
  So I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and in doing so tell us 
to go back and work on the problem and get a real, true bipartisan bill 
that can be supported by the majority of the Democrats and by the 
President of the United States.
  I urge Members to vote against the bill, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  It's been a great debate. It's been a great process. I'll just 
summarize some of the issues. Yes, the issue is about beneficial reuse, 
like this shingle here; but it's also about the storage.
  We were very close to passing this legislation the last Congress, as 
the ranking member knows. This bill is better, as my colleague from 
Texas says. There are 12 additional changes made in this bill versus 
last year's bill that addresses many of the concerns that the minority 
asked and also concerns by the Environmental Protection Agency. We 
worked very closely with them. That is why--and I'll say it again--the 
administration has not issued a veto threat on this bill. That's a 
signal that they may have issues, but there's not an outright veto 
threat on this bill. That's a signal that we've worked with them to 
address some of the major concerns.
  Again, I want to highlight some of the special interest groups that 
are forcing this legislation, like the United Mine Workers, the 
building and construction trades, the transportation workers. Those who 
are historically considered in the minority's coalition are now moving 
to the pro-job coalition of this bill and hopefully other bills in the 
future.
  I want to reemphasize that the EPA in 1993 and 2000 stated that coal 
ash does not have the characteristics of hazardous waste, including 
toxicity, and should not be regulated under subtitle C. That's not us. 
That's the EPA, and that's the EPA making that ruling twice.
  We believe that the Federal Government can set standards. We believe 
that the Federal Government can enforce that the State do 
certification, and we trust the States to be able to monitor and meet 
the standards. That's why I listed in support the Environmental Council 
of the States and Indiana's Department of Environmental Management, 
because what they want to do is get a handle on this. And let's not 
confuse the issue. If the EPA is able to label fly ash as toxic, it 
does depress the beneficial use. So the cheap concrete that's mixed 
with fly ash will not be put in. The road mitigation issues which we've 
done will not be put in. My colleague, Marsha Blackburn, did a great 
job talking about how we use today coal ash and fly ash.
  So I want to thank my colleague, Mr. McKinley, for moving this bill 
and my colleagues on the subcommittee, who have made the changes and 
moved it forward. We look forward to the debates on the amendment, and 
we look forward to passing the bill and sending it to the other Chamber 
and eventually a signature by the President of the United States.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
2218, the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act. This bipartisan 
legislation accomplishes the safe regulation of coal ash without 
jeopardizing job growth, raising energy costs, or burdening industry 
with costly rulemaking.
  H.R. 2218 establishes minimum federal requirements for the disposal 
of coal combustion residuals, which would be enforced by state-based 
permit programs. Rigid and costly EPA

[[Page 12430]]

rulemaking will be avoided, tens of thousands of jobs will be saved, 
and health and environmental concerns will be addressed in a measured, 
responsible way.
  According to a recent nonpartisan study, the Environmental Protection 
Agency's latest attempt to regulate coal ash as hazardous waste could 
lead to net job losses of between 184,000 and 316,000. At a time of 
anemic economic growth, this is unacceptable.
  Of course, this most recent push is part of a broader ``War on Coal'' 
by the Obama Administration, which adheres to a radical, dogmatic 
notion of environmentalism at the expense of American jobs. It also 
proves that the President's claim of an ``all of the above'' approach 
to energy policy is an empty promise to the American people.
  Like my colleagues, I care deeply about the environment--Wisconsin 
has some of the most beautiful hills, lakes and farmland in the 
country. But I also believe we should be mindful of enacting 
environmental policies that will have an adverse effect on jobs and 
economic growth. Rather than rely on stale partisan talking points, 
which result in inflexible, overreaching policy prescriptions, the 
President should work with businesses and other affected stakeholders 
to craft workable solutions to climate change.
  We owe it to the American people to offer viable alternatives to the 
President's agenda. The Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act is a 
tremendous starting point for a bipartisan discussion on environmental 
issues. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
commonsense alternative to the President's War on Coal.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, our country has 676 existing coal ash 
impoundments in 46 States, and an unknown number of ``legacy sites'' 
that continue to pose risk to our communities--risk of contaminating 
the groundwater with arsenic, lead, and mercury or of experiencing 
catastrophic failure like we saw in the 2008 Kingston disaster. That is 
why action must be taken to ensure that coal ash is either recycled 
responsibly or disposed of properly.
  However, instead of taking steps to protect the public health and 
prevent groundwater contamination around storage sites, today's 
legislation authorizes each State to create its own coal waste 
management permitting program, with no legal standard to ensure a 
minimum level of public safety. Moreover, the nonpartisan Congressional 
Research Service has found that the bill would give EPA ``no federal 
backstop authority'' to ensure that States enforce their standards.
  Mr. Chair, rather than addressing the real danger of improperly 
managed coal ash, this bill risks a regulatory race to the bottom, 
threatening the safety of all of our citizens. I urge a no vote.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. 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 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 given that U.S. electric 
utilities generate 130 million tons of coal ash every year.
  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 coal ash as a hazardous 
material, the result of regulating coal ash under Subtitle C, could 
have major impacts on the recycling and reuse of coal ash to 
manufacture wallboard, roofing materials and bricks, and especially 
concrete.
  In 2008 alone, the concrete industry used 15.8 million tons of coal 
ash in the manufacturing of ready mixed concrete making it the most 
widely used supplemental cementing material. When combined with cement, 
coal ash improves the durability, strength, constructability, and 
economy of concrete.
  It also has huge environmental benefits. Using coal ash--an 
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 coal ash could put these benefits in 
jeopardy. It could make coal ash storage and transportation more 
expensive, and create a legal environment that would deter cement 
manufacturers from recycling coal 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 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 coal 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 ash.
  To ensure EPA gets that message, I supported H.R. 2273 in 2011. The 
Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act was 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 was my hope that the U.S. Senate would take this 
more targeted approach.
  Thankfully, in June of 2013, the EPA published a Federal Register 
notice indicating a preference for regulating coal ash under subtitle 
D. I appreciate EPA's willingness to be pragmatic and balance the needs 
of recyclers to achieve greater environmental protection.
  Today we are voting on H.R. 2218, the latest version of the Coal 
Residuals Reuse and Management Act. While the bill has been marginally 
improved, I believe it is no longer necessary. Assuming the EPA 
regulates coal ash under Subtitle D, the recycling and reuse of coal 
ash will not be jeopardized, eliminating the need for legislation. By 
voting against H.R. 2218, I am thanking EPA for its pragmatic 
reconsideration of the June 2010 draft rule and for providing certainty 
for coal ash recyclers.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, I oppose H.R. 2218, the so-called Coal 
Residuals Reuse and Management Act. There are many problems with this 
legislation. It ignores the significant public health concerns around 
coal ash, which includes potent toxins such as mercury, lead, and 
sulfur. It does nothing to ensure the safe disposal of coal ash, and in 
fact allows a state-by-state race to the bottom. Finally, it preempts 
citizens from taking legal action to protect themselves in situations 
where public health is endangered.
  I am particularly troubled by the fact that this legislation 
significantly restructures environmental regulatory authority by 
stripping the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, of its ability to 
enforce any regulations around coal ash disposal. Protecting public 
health is part of what the EPA was created to do and we must give them 
the tools to be able to fulfill their mission. I strongly oppose this 
legislation.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce, printed in 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. 2218

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Coal 
     Residuals Reuse and Management Act of 2013''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 2. Management and disposal of coal combustion residuals.
Sec. 3. 2000 regulatory determination.
Sec. 4. Technical assistance.
Sec. 5. Federal Power Act.

     SEC. 2. MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL OF COAL COMBUSTION RESIDUALS.

       (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:

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

       ``(a) State Permit Programs for Coal Combustion 
     Residuals.--Each State may adopt, implement, and enforce a 
     coal combustion residuals permit program if such State 
     provides the notification required under subsection (b)(1), 
     and the certification required under subsection (b)(2).
       ``(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)(3)(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.

[[Page 12431]]

       ``(2) Certification.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 36 months after the date 
     of enactment of this section (except as provided in 
     subsection (f)(1)(A)), 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 implementing agency shall submit to the Administrator a 
     certification that such coal combustion residuals permit 
     program meets the requirements described in subsection (c).
       ``(B) Contents.--A certification submitted under this 
     paragraph shall include--
       ``(i) a letter identifying the lead State implementing 
     agency, 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) an explanation of how the State coal combustion 
     residuals permit program meets the requirements of this 
     section, 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;
       ``(III) public participation process for the promulgation, 
     amendment, or repeal of regulations for, and the issuance of 
     permits under, such permit program;
       ``(IV) statutes, regulations, or policies pertaining to 
     public access to information, such as groundwater monitoring 
     data; and
       ``(V) statutes, regulations, or policies pertaining to 
     structural integrity or dam safety that may be applied to 
     structures through such permit program;

       ``(iv) a certification that the State has in effect, at the 
     time of certification, statutes or regulations necessary to 
     implement a coal combustion residuals permit program that 
     meets the requirements described in subsection (c); and
       ``(v) copies of State statutes and regulations described in 
     clause (iv).
       ``(C) Updates.--A State may update the certification as 
     needed to reflect changes to the coal combustion residuals 
     permit program.
       ``(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 implementing agency shall maintain an approved 
     permit program or other system of prior approval and 
     conditions under section 4005(c) or an authorized program 
     under section 3006.
       ``(c) Requirements for a Coal Combustion Residuals Permit 
     Program.--A coal combustion residuals permit program shall 
     consist of the following:
       ``(1) General requirements.--
       ``(A) In general.--The implementing agency shall--
       ``(i) apply the subset of the revised criteria described in 
     paragraph (2) to owners or operators of structures, including 
     surface impoundments, that receive coal combustion residuals 
     on or after the date of enactment of this section;
       ``(ii) with respect to structures that are receiving coal 
     combustion residuals as of the date of enactment of this 
     section, take the actions required under paragraph (3);
       ``(iii) impose requirements for surface impoundments that 
     do not meet certain criteria pursuant to paragraph (4); and
       ``(iv) require that closure of structures occur in 
     accordance with paragraph (5).
       ``(B) Structural integrity.--
       ``(i) Engineering certification.--The implementing agency 
     shall require that an independent registered professional 
     engineer certify that--

       ``(I) the design of each structure that receives coal 
     combustion residuals on or after the date of enactment of 
     this section is in accordance with recognized and generally 
     accepted good engineering practices for containment of the 
     maximum volume of coal combustion residuals and liquids which 
     can be impounded therein; and
       ``(II) the construction and maintenance of the structure 
     will ensure structural stability.

       ``(ii) Emergency action plan.--The implementing agency 
     shall require that the owner or operator of any structure 
     that is a surface impoundment that receives coal combustion 
     residuals on or after the date of enactment of this section 
     and that is classified by the State 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) prepare and maintain an 
     emergency action plan that identifies responsible persons and 
     actions to be taken in the event of a dam safety emergency.
       ``(iii) Inspection.--

       ``(I) In general.--The implementing agency shall require 
     that structures that are surface impoundments that receive 
     coal combustion residuals on or after the date of enactment 
     of this section be inspected not less than annually by an 
     independent registered professional engineer to assure that 
     the design, operation, and maintenance of the surface 
     impoundment is in accordance with recognized and generally 
     accepted good engineering practices for containment of the 
     maximum volume of coal combustion residuals and liquids which 
     can be impounded therein, so as to ensure dam stability.
       ``(II) Potentially hazardous conditions.--The implementing 
     agency shall require that if an inspection under subclause 
     (I), or a periodic evaluation under clause (iv), reveals a 
     potentially hazardous condition, the owner or operator of the 
     structure shall immediately take action to mitigate the 
     potentially hazardous condition and notify appropriate State 
     and local first responders.

       ``(iv) Periodic evaluation.--The implementing agency shall 
     require that structures that are surface impoundments that 
     receive coal combustion residuals on or after the date of 
     enactment of this section be periodically evaluated for 
     appearances of structural weakness.
       ``(v) Deficiency.--

       ``(I) In general.--If the head of the implementing agency 
     determines that a structure is deficient with respect to the 
     requirements in clause (i), (iii), or (iv), the head of the 
     agency has the authority to require action to correct the 
     deficiency according to a schedule determined by the agency.
       ``(II) Uncorrected deficiencies.--If a deficiency is not 
     corrected according to the schedule, the head of the 
     implementing agency has the authority to require that the 
     structure close in accordance with paragraph (5).
       ``(III) Dam safety consultation.--In the case of a 
     structure that is a surface impoundment, the head of the 
     implementing agency shall, in making a determination under 
     subclause (I), consult with appropriate State dam safety 
     officials.

       ``(C) Location.--The implementing agency shall require that 
     structures that first receive coal combustion residuals on or 
     after the date of enactment of this section shall be 
     constructed with a base located a minimum of 2 feet above the 
     upper limit of the water table, unless it is demonstrated to 
     the satisfaction of the implementing agency that--
       ``(i) the hydrogeologic characteristics of a structure and 
     surrounding land would preclude such a requirement; and
       ``(ii) the function and integrity of the liner system will 
     not be adversely impacted by contact with the water table.
       ``(D) Wind dispersal.--
       ``(i) In general.--The implementing agency shall require 
     that owners or operators of structures that receive coal 
     combustion residuals on or after the date of enactment of 
     this section address wind dispersal of dust by requiring 
     cover, or by wetting coal combustion residuals with water to 
     a moisture content that prevents wind dispersal, facilitates 
     compaction, and does not result in free liquids.
       ``(ii) Alternative methods.--Subject to the review and 
     approval by the implementing agency, owners or operators of 
     structures that receive coal combustion residuals on or after 
     the date of enactment of this section may propose alternative 
     methods to address wind dispersal of dust that will provide 
     comparable or more effective control of dust.
       ``(E) Permits.--The implementing agency shall require that 
     owners or operators of structures that receive coal 
     combustion residuals on or after the date of enactment of 
     this section apply for and obtain permits incorporating the 
     requirements of the coal combustion residuals permit program.
       ``(F) Public availability of information.--Except for 
     information with respect to which disclosure is prohibited 
     under section 1905 of title 18, United States Code, the 
     implementing agency shall ensure that--
       ``(i) documents for permit determinations are made 
     available for public review and comment under the public 
     participation process described in subsection 
     (b)(2)(B)(iii)(III) or in subsection (e)(6), as applicable;
       ``(ii) final determinations on permit applications are made 
     known to the public; and
       ``(iii) groundwater monitoring data collected under 
     paragraph (2) is publicly available.
       ``(G) Agency authority.--
       ``(i) In general.--The implementing agency has the 
     authority to--

       ``(I) obtain information necessary to determine whether the 
     owner or operator of a structure is in compliance with the 
     requirements of this subsection;
       ``(II) conduct or require monitoring and testing to ensure 
     that structures are in compliance with the requirements of 
     this subsection; and
       ``(III) enter, at reasonable times, any site or premise 
     subject to the coal combustion residuals permit program for 
     the purpose of inspecting structures and reviewing records 
     relevant to the design, operation, and maintenance of 
     structures.

       ``(ii) Monitoring and testing.--If monitoring or testing is 
     conducted under clause (i)(II) by or for the implementing 
     agency, the implementing agency shall, if requested, provide 
     to the owner or operator--

       ``(I) a written description of the monitoring or testing 
     completed;
       ``(II) at the time of sampling, a portion of each sample 
     equal in volume or weight to the portion retained by or for 
     the implementing agency; and
       ``(III) a copy of the results of any analysis of samples 
     collected by or for the implementing agency.

       ``(2) Revised criteria.--The subset of the revised criteria 
     referred to in paragraph (1)(A)(i) are as follows:
       ``(A) Design requirements.--For new structures, and lateral 
     expansions of existing structures, that first receive coal 
     combustion residuals on or 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, except that the leachate collection 
     system requirements described in section 258.40(a)(2) of 
     title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, do not apply to 
     structures that are surface impoundments.
       ``(B) Groundwater monitoring and corrective action.--For 
     all structures that receive

[[Page 12432]]

     coal combustion residuals on or after the date of enactment 
     of this section, the revised criteria regarding groundwater 
     monitoring and corrective action requirements described in 
     subpart E of part 258 of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, except that, for the purposes of this 
     subparagraph, the 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, 
     establishing a groundwater protection standard, and 
     assessment of corrective measures, the constituents aluminum, 
     boron, chloride, fluoride, iron, manganese, molybdenum, pH, 
     sulfate, and total dissolved solids.
       ``(C) Closure.--For all structures that receive coal 
     combustion residuals on or after the date of enactment of 
     this section, in a manner consistent with paragraph (5), the 
     revised criteria for closure described in subsections (a) 
     through (c) and (h) through (j) of section 258.60 of title 
     40, Code of Federal Regulations.
       ``(D) Post-closure.--For all structures that receive coal 
     combustion residuals on or after the date of enactment of 
     this section, the revised criteria for post-closure care 
     described in section 258.61 of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, except for the requirement described in 
     subsection (a)(4) of that section.
       ``(E) Location restrictions.--The revised criteria for 
     location restrictions described in--
       ``(i) for new structures, and lateral expansions of 
     existing structures, that first receive coal combustion 
     residuals on or 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 on or after the date of enactment of this section, 
     sections 258.11 and 258.15 of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.
       ``(F) Air quality.--For all structures that receive coal 
     combustion residuals on or 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.
       ``(G) Financial assurance.--For all structures that receive 
     coal combustion residuals on or 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.
       ``(H) Surface water.--For all structures that receive coal 
     combustion residuals on or 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.
       ``(I) Recordkeeping.--For all structures that receive coal 
     combustion residuals on or 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.
       ``(J) Run-on and run-off control systems for land-based 
     units.--For all landfills and other land-based units, other 
     than surface impoundments, that receive coal combustion 
     residuals on or 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.
       ``(K) Run-off control systems for surface impoundments.--
     For all surface impoundments that receive coal combustion 
     residuals on or 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.
       ``(3) Permit program implementation for existing 
     structures.--
       ``(A) Notification.--Not later than the date on which a 
     State submits a certification under subsection (b)(2), not 
     later than 30 months after the Administrator receives notice 
     under subsection (e)(1)(A), or not later than 36 months after 
     the date of enactment of this section with respect to a coal 
     combustion residuals permit program that is being implemented 
     by the Administrator under subsection (e)(3), as applicable, 
     the implementing agency shall notify owners or operators of 
     structures that are receiving coal combustion residuals as of 
     the date of enactment of this section within the State of--
       ``(i) the obligation to apply for and obtain a permit under 
     subparagraph (C); and
       ``(ii) the requirements referred to in subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Compliance with certain requirements.--Not later than 
     12 months after the date on which a State submits a 
     certification under subsection (b)(2), not later than 42 
     months after the Administrator receives notice under 
     subsection (e)(1)(A), or not later than 48 months after the 
     date of enactment of this section with respect to a coal 
     combustion residuals permit program that is being implemented 
     by the Administrator under subsection (e)(3), as applicable, 
     the implementing agency shall require owners or operators of 
     structures that are receiving coal combustion residuals as of 
     the date of enactment of this section to comply with--
       ``(i) the requirements under paragraphs (1)(B)(ii) and 
     (iii), (1)(D), (2)(B), (2)(F), (2)(H), (2)(J), and (2)(K); 
     and
       ``(ii) the groundwater recordkeeping requirement described 
     in section 258.29(a)(5) of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.
       ``(C)  Permits.--
       ``(i) Permit deadline.--Not later than 48 months after the 
     date on which a State submits a certification under 
     subsection (b)(2), not later than 78 months after the 
     Administrator receives notice under subsection (e)(1)(A), or 
     not later than 84 months after the date of enactment of this 
     section with respect to a coal combustion residuals permit 
     program that is being implemented by the Administrator under 
     subsection (e)(3), as applicable, the implementing agency 
     shall issue, with respect to a structure that is receiving 
     coal combustion residuals as of the date of enactment of this 
     section, a final permit incorporating the requirements of the 
     coal combustion residuals permit program, or a final denial 
     for an application submitted requesting such a permit.
       ``(ii) Application deadline.--The implementing agency shall 
     identify, in collaboration with the owner or operator of a 
     structure described in clause (i), a reasonable deadline by 
     which the owner or operator shall submit a permit application 
     under such clause.
       ``(D) Interim operation.--
       ``(i) Prior to deadlines.--With respect to any period of 
     time on or after the date of enactment of this section but 
     prior to the applicable deadline in subparagraph (B), the 
     owner or operator of a structure that is receiving coal 
     combustion residuals as of the date of enactment of this 
     section may continue to operate such structure until such 
     applicable deadline under the applicable authority in effect.
       ``(ii) Prior to permit.--Unless the implementing agency 
     determines that the structure should close pursuant to 
     paragraph (5), if the owner or operator of a structure that 
     is receiving coal combustion residuals as of the date of 
     enactment of this section meets the requirements referred to 
     in subparagraph (B) by the applicable deadline in such 
     subparagraph, the owner or operator may operate the structure 
     until such time as the implementing agency issues, under 
     subparagraph (C), a final permit incorporating the 
     requirements of the coal combustion residuals permit program, 
     or a final denial for an application submitted requesting 
     such a permit.
       ``(4) Requirements for surface impoundments that do not 
     meet certain criteria.--
       ``(A) Surface impoundments that require assessment of 
     corrective measures within 10 years of the date of 
     enactment.--
       ``(i) In general.--In addition to the groundwater 
     monitoring and corrective action requirements described in 
     paragraph (2)(B), the implementing agency shall require a 
     surface impoundment that receives coal combustion residuals 
     on or after the date of enactment of this section to comply 
     with the requirements in clause (ii) of this subparagraph and 
     clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (D) if the surface 
     impoundment--

       ``(I) does not--

       ``(aa) have a liner system described in section 258.40(b) 
     of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations; and
       ``(bb) meet the design criteria described in section 
     258.40(a)(1) of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations; and

       ``(II) within 10 years after the date of enactment of this 
     section, is required under section 258.56(a) of title 40, 
     Code of Federal Regulations, to undergo an assessment of 
     corrective measures for any constituent covered under subpart 
     E of part 258 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, or 
     otherwise identified in paragraph (2)(B)(ii) of this 
     subsection, for which assessment groundwater monitoring is 
     required.

       ``(ii) Deadline to meet groundwater protection standard.--
     Except as provided in subparagraph (C), the implementing 
     agency shall require that the groundwater protection 
     standard, for surface impoundments identified in clause (i) 
     of this subparagraph, established by the implementing agency 
     under section 258.55(h) or 258.55(i) of title 40, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, for any constituent for which corrective 
     measures are required shall be met--

       ``(I) as soon as practicable at the relevant point of 
     compliance, as described in section 258.40(d) of title 40, 
     Code of Federal Regulations; and
       ``(II) not later than 10 years after the date of enactment 
     of this section.

       ``(B) Surface impoundments subject to a state corrective 
     action requirement as of the date of enactment.--
       ``(i) In general.--In addition to the groundwater 
     monitoring and corrective action requirements described in 
     paragraph (2)(B), the implementing agency shall require a 
     surface impoundment that receives coal combustion residuals 
     on or after the date of enactment of this section to comply 
     with the requirements in clause (ii) of this subparagraph and 
     clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (D) if the surface 
     impoundment--

       ``(I) does not--

       ``(aa) have a liner system described in section 258.40(b) 
     of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations; and
       ``(bb) meet the design criteria described in section 
     258.40(a)(1) of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations; and

       ``(II) as of the date of enactment of this section, is 
     subject to a State corrective action requirement.

       ``(ii) Deadline to meet groundwater protection standard.--
     Except as provided in subparagraph (C), the implementing 
     agency shall require that the groundwater protection 
     standard, for surface impoundments identified in clause (i) 
     of this subparagraph, established by the implementing agency 
     under section 258.55(h) or 258.55(i) of title 40, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, for any constituent for which corrective 
     measures are required shall be met--

       ``(I) as soon as practicable at the relevant point of 
     compliance, as described in section 258.40(d) of title 40, 
     Code of Federal Regulations; and
       ``(II) not later than 8 years after the date of enactment 
     of this section.

[[Page 12433]]

       ``(C) Extension of deadline.--
       ``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii) of 
     this subparagraph, the deadline for meeting a groundwater 
     protection standard under subparagraph (A)(ii) or (B)(ii) may 
     be extended by the implementing agency, after opportunity for 
     public notice and comment under the public participation 
     process described in subsection (b)(2)(B)(iii)(III), or in 
     subsection (e)(6) based on--

       ``(I) the effectiveness of any interim measures implemented 
     by the owner or operator of the facility under section 
     258.58(a)(3) of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations;
       ``(II) the level of progress demonstrated in meeting the 
     groundwater protection standard;
       ``(III) the potential for other adverse human health or 
     environmental exposures attributable to the contamination 
     from the surface impoundment undergoing corrective action; 
     and
       ``(IV) the lack of available alternative management 
     capacity for the coal combustion residuals and related 
     materials managed in the impoundment at the facility at which 
     the impoundment is located if the owner or operator has used 
     best efforts, as necessary, to design, obtain any necessary 
     permits, finance, construct, and render operational the 
     alternative management capacity during the time period for 
     meeting a groundwater protection standard in subparagraph 
     (A)(ii) or (B)(ii).

       ``(ii) Exception.--The deadline under subparagraph (A)(ii) 
     or (B)(ii) shall not be extended if there has been 
     contamination of public or private drinking water systems 
     attributable to a surface impoundment undergoing corrective 
     action, unless the contamination has been addressed by 
     providing a permanent replacement water system.
       ``(D) Additional requirements.--
       ``(i) Closure.--If the deadline under subparagraph (A)(ii), 
     (B)(ii), or (C) is not satisfied, the surface impoundment 
     shall cease receiving coal combustion residuals and initiate 
     closure under paragraph (5).
       ``(ii) Interim measures.--

       ``(I) In general.--Except as provided in subclause (II), 
     not later than 90 days after the date on which the assessment 
     of corrective measures is initiated, the owner or operator of 
     a surface impoundment described in subparagraph (A) or (B) 
     shall implement interim measures, as necessary, under the 
     factors in section 258.58(a)(3) of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.
       ``(II) Impoundments subject to state corrective action 
     requirement as of the date of enactment.--Subclause (I) shall 
     only apply to surface impoundments subject to a State 
     corrective action requirement as of the date of enactment of 
     this section if the owner or operator has not implemented 
     interim measures, as necessary, under the factors in section 
     258.58(a)(3) of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations.

       ``(E) Surface impoundments that require assessment of 
     corrective measures more than 10 years after date of 
     enactment.--
       ``(i) In general.--In addition to the groundwater 
     monitoring and corrective action requirements described in 
     paragraph (2)(B), the implementing agency shall require a 
     surface impoundment that receives coal combustion residuals 
     on or after the date of enactment of this section to comply 
     with the requirements in clause (ii) if the surface 
     impoundment--

       ``(I) does not--

       ``(aa) have a liner system described in section 258.40(b) 
     of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations; and
       ``(bb) meet the design criteria described in section 
     258.40(a)(1) of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations; and

       ``(II) more than 10 years after the date of enactment of 
     this section, is required under section 258.56(a) title 40, 
     Code of Federal Regulations, to undergo an assessment of 
     corrective measures for any constituent covered under subpart 
     E of part 258 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, or 
     otherwise identified in paragraph (2)(B)(ii) of this 
     subsection, for which assessment groundwater monitoring is 
     required.

       ``(ii) Requirements.--

       ``(I) Closure.--The surface impoundments identified in 
     clause (i) shall cease receiving coal combustion residuals 
     and initiate closure in accordance with paragraph (5) after 
     alternative management capacity at the facility is available 
     for the coal combustion residuals and related materials 
     managed in the impoundment.
       ``(II) Best efforts.--The alternative management capacity 
     shall be developed as soon as practicable with the owner or 
     operator using best efforts to design, obtain necessary 
     permits for, finance, construct, and render operational the 
     alternative management capacity.
       ``(III) Alternative capacity management plan.--The owner or 
     operator shall, in collaboration with the implementing 
     agency, prepare a written plan that describes the steps 
     necessary to develop the alternative management capacity and 
     includes a schedule for completion.
       ``(IV) Public participation.--The plan described in 
     subclause (III) shall be subject to public notice and comment 
     under the public participation process described in 
     subsection (b)(2)(B)(iii)(III) or in subsection (e)(6), as 
     applicable.

       ``(5) Closure.--
       ``(A) In general.--If it is determined by the implementing 
     agency that a structure should close because the requirements 
     of a coal combustion residuals permit program are not being 
     satisfied with respect to such structure, or if it is 
     determined by the owner or operator that a structure should 
     close, the time period and method for the closure of such 
     structure shall be set forth in a closure plan that 
     establishes a deadline for completion of closure as soon as 
     practicable and that takes into account the nature and the 
     site-specific characteristics of the structure to be closed.
       ``(B) Surface impoundment.--In the case of a surface 
     impoundment, the closure plan under subparagraph (A) shall 
     require, at a minimum, the removal of liquid and the 
     stabilization of remaining waste, as necessary to support the 
     final cover.
       ``(d) Federal Review of State Permit Programs.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall provide to a 
     State written notice and an opportunity to remedy 
     deficiencies in accordance with paragraph (3) if at any time 
     the State--
       ``(A) does not satisfy the notification requirement under 
     subsection (b)(1);
       ``(B) has not submitted a certification required under 
     subsection (b)(2);
       ``(C) does not satisfy the maintenance requirement under 
     subsection (b)(3);
       ``(D) is not implementing a coal combustion residuals 
     permit program, with respect to which the State has submitted 
     a certification under subsection (b)(2), that meets the 
     requirements described in subsection (c);
       ``(E) is not implementing a coal combustion residuals 
     permit program, with respect to which the State has submitted 
     a certification under subsection (b)(2)--
       ``(i) that is consistent with such certification; and
       ``(ii) for which the State continues to have in effect 
     statutes or regulations necessary to implement such program; 
     or
       ``(F) does not make available to the Administrator, within 
     90 days of a written request, specific information necessary 
     for the Administrator to ascertain whether the State has 
     satisfied the requirements described in subparagraphs (A) 
     through (E).
       ``(2) Request.--If a request described in paragraph (1)(F) 
     is proposed pursuant to a petition to the Administrator, the 
     Administrator shall only make the request if the 
     Administrator does not possess the information necessary to 
     ascertain whether the State has satisfied the requirements 
     described in subparagraphs (A) through (E) of such paragraph.
       ``(3) Contents of notice; deadline for response.--A notice 
     provided under paragraph (1) shall--
       ``(A) include findings of the Administrator detailing any 
     applicable deficiencies described in subparagraphs (A) 
     through (F) of paragraph (1); and
       ``(B) identify, in collaboration with the State, a 
     reasonable deadline by which the State shall remedy such 
     applicable deficiencies, which shall be--
       ``(i) in the case of a deficiency described in 
     subparagraphs (A) through (E) of paragraph (1), not earlier 
     than 180 days after the date on which the State receives the 
     notice; and
       ``(ii) in the case of a deficiency described in paragraph 
     (1)(F), not later than 90 days after the date on which the 
     State receives the notice.
       ``(4) Criteria for determining deficiency of state permit 
     program.--In making a determination whether a State has 
     failed to satisfy the requirements described in subparagraphs 
     (A) through (E) of paragraph (1), or a determination under 
     subsection (e)(1)(B), the Administrator shall consider, as 
     appropriate--
       ``(A) whether the State's statutes or regulations to 
     implement a coal combustion residuals permit program are not 
     sufficient to meet the requirements described in subsection 
     (c) because of--
       ``(i) failure of the State to promulgate or enact new 
     statutes or regulations when necessary; or
       ``(ii) action by a State legislature or court striking down 
     or limiting such State statutes or regulations;
       ``(B) whether the operation of the State coal combustion 
     residuals permit program fails to comply with the 
     requirements of subsection (c) because of--
       ``(i) failure of the State to issue permits as required in 
     subsection (c)(1)(E);
       ``(ii) repeated issuance of permits by the State which do 
     not meet the requirements of subsection (c);
       ``(iii) failure of the State to comply with the public 
     participation requirements of this section; or
       ``(iv) failure of the State to implement corrective action 
     requirements as described in subsection (c)(2)(B); and
       ``(C) whether the enforcement of a State coal combustion 
     residuals permit program fails to comply with the 
     requirements of this section because of--
       ``(i) failure to act on violations of permits, as 
     identified by the State; or
       ``(ii) repeated failure by the State to inspect or 
     otherwise determine compliance pursuant to the process 
     identified in subsection (b)(2)(B)(iii)(I).
       ``(e) Implementation by Administrator.--
       ``(1) Federal backstop authority.--The Administrator shall 
     implement a coal combustion residuals permit program for a 
     State only if--
       ``(A) the Governor of the State notifies the Administrator 
     under subsection (b)(1) that the State will not adopt and 
     implement a permit program;
       ``(B) the State has received a notice under subsection (d) 
     and the Administrator determines, after providing a 30-day 
     period for notice and public comment, that the State has 
     failed, by the deadline identified in the notice under 
     subsection (d)(3)(B), to remedy the deficiencies detailed in 
     the notice under subsection (d)(3)(A); or
       ``(C) the State informs the Administrator, in writing, that 
     such State will no longer implement such a permit program.

[[Page 12434]]

       ``(2) Review.--A State may obtain a review of a 
     determination by the Administrator under this subsection as 
     if the determination was a final regulation for purposes of 
     section 7006.
       ``(3) Other structures.--For structures that receive coal 
     combustion residuals on or after the date of enactment of 
     this section located on property within the exterior 
     boundaries of a State that the State does not have authority 
     or jurisdiction to regulate, the Administrator shall 
     implement a coal combustion residuals permit program only for 
     those structures.
       ``(4) Requirements.--If the Administrator implements a coal 
     combustion residuals permit program for a State under 
     paragraph (1) or (3), the permit program shall consist of the 
     requirements described in subsection (c).
       ``(5) Enforcement.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the Administrator implements a coal 
     combustion residuals permit program for a State under 
     paragraph (1)--
       ``(i) the authorities referred to in section 4005(c)(2)(A) 
     shall apply with respect to coal combustion residuals and 
     structures for which the Administrator is implementing the 
     coal combustion residuals permit program; and
       ``(ii) the Administrator may use those authorities to 
     inspect, gather information, and enforce the requirements of 
     this section in the State.
       ``(B) Other structures.--If the Administrator implements a 
     coal combustion residuals permit program under paragraph 
     (3)--
       ``(i) the authorities referred to in section 4005(c)(2)(A) 
     shall apply with respect to coal combustion residuals and 
     structures for which the Administrator is implementing the 
     coal combustion residuals permit program; and
       ``(ii) the Administrator may use those authorities to 
     inspect, gather information, and enforce the requirements of 
     this section for the structures for which the Administrator 
     is implementing the coal combustion residuals permit program.
       ``(6) Public participation process.--If the Administrator 
     implements a coal combustion residuals permit program for a 
     State under this subsection, the Administrator shall provide 
     a 30-day period for the public participation process required 
     in paragraphs (1)(F)(i), (4)(C)(i), and (4)(E)(ii)(IV) of 
     subsection (c).
       ``(f) State Control After Implementation by 
     Administrator.--
       ``(1) State control.--
       ``(A) New adoption, or resumption of, and implementation by 
     state.--For a State for which the Administrator is 
     implementing a coal combustion residuals permit program under 
     subsection (e)(1)(A), or 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, after providing a 30-day period for 
     notice and public comment, that the State coal combustion 
     residuals permit program meets the requirements described in 
     subsection (c); 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 only the deficiencies detailed in the 
     notice pursuant to subsection (d)(3)(A); and
       ``(ii) receiving from the Administrator--

       ``(I) a determination, after providing a 30-day period for 
     notice and public comment, 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.

       ``(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 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.--Program requirements 
     of, and 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 program requirements, actions, and orders until such 
     time as--
       ``(i) the implementing agency changes the requirements of 
     the coal combustion residuals permit program with respect to 
     the basis for the action or order; or
       ``(ii) the State or the Administrator, whichever took the 
     action or issued the order, 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)(1) 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) 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 subsections (d) 
     and (e) and section 6005, 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 as affecting the authority of the Administrator 
     under section 7003 with respect to coal combustion residuals.
       ``(C) 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 
     enforcement assistance requested.
       ``(D) Concurrent enforcement.--Except as provided in 
     subparagraph (C), the Administrator shall not have concurrent 
     enforcement authority when a State is implementing a coal 
     combustion residuals permit program, including during any 
     period of interim operation described in subsection 
     (c)(3)(D).
       ``(E) Other authority.--The Administrator shall not have 
     authority to finalize the proposed rule published at pages 
     35128 through 35264 of volume 75 of the Federal Register 
     (June 21, 2010).
       ``(F) Other response authority.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed as affecting the authority of the 
     Administrator under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et 
     seq.) with respect to coal combustion residuals.
       ``(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.
       ``(i) Mine Reclamation Activities.--A coal combustion 
     residuals permit program implemented by the Administrator 
     under subsection (e) shall not apply to the utilization, 
     placement, and storage of coal combustion residuals at 
     surface mining and reclamation operations.
       ``(j) 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 all of the 
     authorities, activities, and procedures that comprise the 
     system of prior approval and conditions implemented by or for 
     a State to regulate the management and disposal of coal 
     combustion residuals.
       ``(3) Code of federal regulations.--The term `Code of 
     Federal Regulations' means the Code of Federal Regulations 
     (as in effect on the date of enactment of this section) or 
     any successor regulations.
       ``(4) Implementing agency.--The term `implementing agency' 
     means the agency responsible for implementing a coal 
     combustion residuals permit program for a State, which shall 
     either be the lead State implementing agency identified under 
     subsection (b)(2)(B)(i) or the Administrator pursuant to 
     subsection (e).
       ``(5) Permit; prior approval and conditions.--Except as 
     provided in subsections (b)(3) and (g), the terms `permit' 
     and `prior approval and conditions' mean any authorization, 
     license, or equivalent control document that incorporates the 
     requirements of subsection (c).
       ``(6) 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).
       ``(7) Structure.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the term `structure' means a landfill, surface impoundment, 
     or other land-based unit which receives, or is intended to 
     receive, coal combustion residuals.
       ``(B) De minimis receipt.--The term `structure' does not 
     include any land-based unit that

[[Page 12435]]

     receives only de minimis quantities of coal combustion 
     residuals if the presence of coal combustion residuals is 
     incidental to the material managed in the unit.''.
       (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.).

     SEC. 4. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

       Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, 
     shall be construed to affect the authority of a State to 
     request, or the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency to provide, technical assistance under the Solid Waste 
     Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.).

     SEC. 5. FEDERAL POWER ACT.

       Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, 
     shall be construed to affect the obligations of an owner or 
     operator of a structure (as defined in section 4011 of the 
     Solid Waste Disposal Act, as added by this Act) under section 
     215(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824o(b)(1)).

  The CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part A of House 
Report 113-174. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered as 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. Connolly

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part A of House Report 113-174.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 6, line 4, strike ``and''.
       Page 6, line 6, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 6, after line 6, insert the following new clause:
       ``(vi) an emergency action plan for State response to a 
     leak or spill at a structure that receives coal combustion 
     residuals.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 315, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Connolly) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a commonsense amendment 
to ensure that every State that chooses to allow coal ash impoundments 
as outlined in this bill has a strong emergency response plan in the 
unfortunate event of a leak or spill.
  Sadly, the 2008 failure of a coal ash impoundment in Kingston, 
Tennessee, highlights the very devastation a spill can have on a 
community. As was widely reported at the time, a breach in a surface 
impoundment pond at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston facility 
released more than 5 million cubic yards of coal ash, covering more 
than 300 acres in toxic sludge, damaging and destroying homes and 
property. As we speak, there is still a Federal Superfund cleanup site 
where the total cost could top more than $1.2 billion. Absent a plan, 
what could go wrong?
  Beyond that staggering price tag, let us not forget that the lasting 
economic and health impacts in the surrounding communities resulting 
from this spill are catastrophic. Families were displaced from their 
homes. Some residents still suffer from respiratory illnesses and other 
side effects. Arsenic levels where the Kingston coal ash runoff were 
disposed of are measured at 80 times higher that the amount legally 
allowed under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the EPA already has said 
such exposure significantly increases a lifetime risk of cancer. These 
are just the impacts we know of today. Who knows what the unknown 
health consequences might be.
  The Kingston incident is not an isolated event, sadly. According to 
Earthjustice, there have been more than 211 known cases of coal ash 
contamination and spills in 37 different States. According to the EPA, 
45 impoundments are currently considered high hazard, meaning that a 
failure will probably cause loss of human life. Of course, this bill 
doesn't concern itself with those problems or apply the lessons 
learned.
  In response to the Kingston incident, former Tennessee Governor Phil 
Bredesen even acknowledged that ``the State's environmental 
regulations, mostly written in the 1970s, don't take into account a 
disaster such as the ash spill and need a top to bottom review.''

                              {time}  1015

  And he said we need a top-to-bottom review of those policies.
  As we have already seen, the Federal Government is forced to step in 
when disasters such as these take place. Yet, rather than make the 
Federal Government a partner, or even a resource, this bill turns sole 
responsibility over to the States. There ought to be a clear minimum 
set of standards for EPA to identify and remedy State program 
deficiencies, stronger groundwater protection standards, and clear and 
appropriate authority for taking potential corrective action on unlined 
or leaking impoundments. That seems common sense.
  The original amendment would have ensured that States certify their 
coal ash permitting plans annually, including up-to-date emergency 
response plans. The House majority thought regular reporting was 
nothing more than a paperwork exercise, so I now offer this revised 
amendment in keeping with their concerns to ensure, at a minimum, that 
States have thorough and comprehensive emergency response plans to 
address a spill or a leak. We cannot simply count on private enterprise 
to be prepared for a spill. The State and local governments, who are 
the first responders, must be active partners. By requiring them to 
provide EPA simply their own emergency response plans, we are taking a 
modest step to ensure they are prepared to respond to an emergency.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I claim the time in opposition, but I don't oppose the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Illinois is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague for working 
with us and making some changes that we thought were appropriate.
  We agree with my colleague from Virginia that States should identify 
what their emergency response procedures are in the certification 
process, and so we are prepared to accept the amendment. He's made it a 
better bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, and I look forward 
to working with him.
  I yield to the distinguished ranking member.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I support your amendment and urge all of our colleagues to support it 
as well.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the gentleman.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Waxman

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
part A of House Report 113-174.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 6, strike lines 22 and 23 and insert the following:
       ``(A) In general.--The implementing agency shall apply, and 
     structures shall meet, requirements as necessary to protect 
     human health and the environment.

[[Page 12436]]

       ``(B) Criteria.--The implementing agency shall--

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 315, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, under all of our environmental laws, the 
Federal Government sets a standard, and then the States implement the 
law looking at the different circumstances in their community. For 
example, the Clean Air Act says, in effect, everywhere in this country, 
we cannot have air pollution that exceeds the standard to protect the 
public health, but the States decide the implementation to achieve that 
standard.
  Under this bill, we're not setting a national standard. We're telling 
the States to set a standard. If we're going to let the States set the 
standard, my amendment would require that the standard in every State 
be to protect the public health, to protect human health and the 
environment. That's the goal of these laws, and that should be the 
requirement under this law.
  The standards are the yardsticks under which we determine whether a 
State's effort measures up and ensures a consistent level of protection 
throughout the Nation. If we're not going to have a national standard 
by EPA, let's require the State to set that standard. This is an 
approach that has worked well because it ensures that all Americans 
enjoy a minimum level of protection and residents of one State are not 
threatened by inadequate laws in a neighboring State.
  For example, if one State has a good, strong law to protect the 
public health, another State, trying to get the business away from that 
State to locate in theirs, will drop their standards lower to try to 
entice that business to relocate. The laxest protection becomes the 
dumping ground for the neighboring States. We don't want to put States 
in a race to the bottom.
  When Congress passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, we 
assigned EPA a simple mission: to protect human health and the 
environment from unsafe disposal of solid waste. Achieving that mission 
can be complex, but we have a clear goal. It provides direction for the 
Agency's technical work. But the bill we are considering today doesn't 
contain this standard.
  Disposal of household garbage, for example, must be disposed of in a 
way that protects human health. But under this bill, coal ash would not 
be required to be disposed of in a way that protects human health.
  My amendment would fix this serious problem by calling on the States 
to require measures necessary to protect human health and the 
environment. If we had the Republicans willing to accept the amendment 
that every State have an emergency plan, we're simply asking that every 
State have a goal, clearly stated, to achieve the protection of human 
health and the environment, otherwise a State's plan is not adequate; 
there would be no recourse as long as a State meets all of the other 
requirements of this law but still does not get to the goal.
  The Congressional Research Service examined this legislation, and 
they told us that nothing in H.R. 2218 requires the States to establish 
programs that will achieve any specified level of Federal standard or 
protection. CRS concluded:

       The degree to which a State program may protect human 
     health from risks specific to coal ash disposal would not be 
     known until individual States begin to interpret the bill.

  That means the one thing we know for sure is that this bill will take 
EPA off the beat--take the EPA off the beat, like we took the SEC and 
other regulators off the beat, where Wall Street took huge risks and 
drove our economy over the cliff. It'll take EPA off the beat, and then 
we'll gamble on each State government doing a good job. That's a pretty 
risky gamble. And if it doesn't pay off, who's going to suffer? Well, 
the price will be borne by communities in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 
Alabama and elsewhere whose water supplies will suffer from toxic 
contamination.
  Members from some of those States come in here and argue we need 
those jobs. Well, of course we need the jobs, and we're going to keep 
those jobs. But why shouldn't we, in keeping jobs, have waste disposals 
be constructed in a way that will not pollute our drinking water and 
harm human health?
  So I would urge that we set this standard in the bill and adopt this 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McKINLEY. First, I want to just add a congratulations to my 
colleague from California whose position apparently has evolved over 
the last couple of years, because I remember back in 2011, he had a 
problem and voted against the recycling material. So to hear him today 
say how he favors, I appreciate that. That was on H.R. 1 in February of 
2011.
  But as for this amendment, this is not necessary because H.R. 2218 
establishes a minimum standard of protection for coal ash permit 
programs. The standard of protection is the minimum requirements that 
are set out in this bill and includes protections such as groundwater 
monitoring; corrective action; financial assurance; specific cleanup 
and closure requirements for unlined, leaking impoundments; stringent 
structural stability requirements; and fugitive dust controls.
  Furthermore, H.R. 2218 establishes a minimum national standard that 
is based on the existing criteria for municipal solid waste landfills 
which were promulgated by EPA to ``protect human health and the 
environment.''
  This chart is a collection of some of the elements that are included 
in the bill already to deal with standards. Things like requiring that 
the structure be located above water tables. Groundwater monitoring is 
to be included in this. We have surface water controls under section 
4011, controls for CCR landfills, control runoffs for CCR surface, 
accelerated corrective action for unlined surface impoundments.
  We included in this bill, and if people would read the bill, they 
would see that under 4011, there are areas where the EPA can help to 
identify deficiencies, including specific criteria for undertaking a 
deficiency review. It has a backstop authority to enforce that these 
requirements are upheld and to correct any EPA-identified deficiency.
  My colleague continues to use this ``race to the bottom'' among 
States, and they will compete with each other to become the dumping 
ground for neighbor States. That's a misguided assumption and, frankly, 
an insult to the hardworking State environmental regulators. It is 
unfortunate that he also does not trust the environmental regulators in 
his State, or any other State for that matter, to establish permit 
programs that are protective. My colleague ignores that the State 
regulators are tasked every day with protecting human health and the 
environment.
  Another problem with this amendment is that, since it is not well 
defined, the EPA or a judge would have the sole discretion to determine 
what constitutes ``protecting human health and the environment.'' Any 
State failing to meet this subjective and ambiguous standard would have 
their permit program stripped from them to be run by the EPA.
  This amendment diminishes the important role of the States and lets 
the EPA meddle in a program the States have proven that they are 
capable of handling. This amendment is not about protecting human 
health and the environment; it's about growing Federal control at the 
expense of the States. States have been tasked with implementing RCRA, 
and this bill allows them to continue to do just that.
  If you support bigger government, support this amendment; but if you 
trust your State to take care of its own people, then we should oppose 
it. I urge opposition to this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Waxman).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.

[[Page 12437]]


  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California will be 
postponed.


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Tonko

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
part A of House Report 113-174.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 34, line 11, strike ``program; or'' and insert 
     ``program;''.
       Page 34, line 17, strike ``(E).'' and insert ``(E); or''.
       Page 34, after line 17, insert the following subparagraph:
       ``(G) is subject to a determination under paragraph (5).
       Page 35, line 6, insert ``or in paragraph (5)'' after 
     ``paragraph (1)''.
       Page 35, line 14, insert ``or in paragraph (5)'' after 
     ``paragraph (1)''.
       Page 36, line 1, after ``(e)(1)(B)'' insert ``other than a 
     determination with respect to a deficiency described in 
     paragraph (1)(G)''.
       Page 37, after line 13, insert the following paragraph:
       ``(5) Deficiency based on interstate risks.--The 
     Administrator shall determine a State coal combustion 
     residuals permit program to be deficient if, at any time, the 
     State permit program, or the implementation of the State 
     permit program, threatens human health or the environment in 
     another State. Any State may request that the Administrator 
     review another State's coal combustion residuals permit 
     program for deficiency under this paragraph.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 315, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Tonko) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, we are a Nation of 50 States, but we are 
bound together by common history, purpose, and laws.
  Prior to the passage of national environmental laws, States had 
individual regulatory programs that offered a patchwork of protection. 
We tried this system for air, for water, for toxic waste, and for many 
other things. That is the system we have today for the disposal of coal 
combustion residuals that cannot be recycled. It did not work; it does 
not work.
  H.R. 2218 will not correct the problems with coal ash disposal. We 
have a State-by-State program for coal ash disposal now. H.R. 2218 
codifies that situation and goes further to prevent the EPA from 
exercising its authority to require that State programs provide a basic 
standard to ensure that all citizens are indeed protected.

                              {time}  1030

  My amendment authorizes a proper Federal role, a role of oversight 
for the EPA to ensure the actions of one State do not result in 
negative impacts on a State with which it shares an important resource.
  In addition, my amendment would enable a State to request that EPA 
review the permitting program of another State to ensure that the 
program offered sufficient protection of its citizens and its 
resources.
  We do not allow northern States along the Mississippi River to dump 
toxic substances into the river for downstream States to clean up. We 
do not allow individual States to pollute the air and send the 
pollution well beyond their borders.
  We need a better system for dealing with coal combustion waste, a 
system that applies fairly across our great country.
  You might wonder how often the location of a coal ash facility is 
near enough to a shared resource or a State's border to cause a 
potential problem. Well, it turns out it is common.
  The failure of a coal ash facility associated with the Martins Creek 
Power Plant in Pennsylvania affected communities in New Jersey when 
coal ash spilled into the Delaware River.
  Residents of the State of Michigan were upset when the failure of an 
old coal ash impoundment in Wisconsin sent coal ash, mud, and machinery 
into Lake Michigan.
  And several of the coal combustion disposal facilities on the high-
hazard list in Ohio and West Virginia are located along the Ohio River, 
a shared border and resource of these two States.
  Well, I could go on. It turns out that because these facilities are 
often located in close proximity to coal-fired utilities where the 
waste is generated, they are also close to water required for cooling 
and steam generation. A number are located near sizable water sources 
that serve multiple communities and often multiple States.
  So, in order to ensure good relations between neighboring States, and 
to ensure that all our citizens are protected from exposure to the 
toxic substances contained in coal ash, I believe the EPA should have 
the authority to step in when necessary.
  The system we have used successfully, based upon common standards 
that ensure the protection of human health and the environment, should 
be applied to this situation. We cannot afford another episode like the 
one in Kingston, Tennessee.
  The choice is not about whether we can have a clean, healthy 
environment or a robust economy. We can have both. Part of the formula 
for ensuring a robust economy includes having a clean environment.
  Pollution is not cost-free. It costs us lost work days, illness, and 
premature deaths. It devalues property and results in expensive, 
unnecessary cleanup costs. We can do better.
  My amendment will improve this bill and protect all our citizens and 
their shared resources. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, the State permit program must incorporate 
minimum requirements which are based on regulations promulgated by the 
EPA to ``protect human health and the environment,'' which include 
groundwater monitoring of all structures, fugitive dust control, 
structural stability requirements and closure of structures that cannot 
be corrected.
  The premise of this is, if you have Federal standards, that they're 
not protective, and that the States will not do that.
  We find this debate very curious, in that my colleagues on the other 
side have so much of a disrespect for the States and their 
environmental communities and the ability of States to ensure the 
protection of human health, the environment from a State position, 
Federal standards, State certification process, States.
  Under RCRA, the States do this anyway. This is what the States do. 
Under the Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Act, the States are the ones 
who are enforcing this. All we're doing is saying we can do this now 
for fly ash and coal ash.
  So while my colleague's amendment is well-intentioned, it really 
undercuts the purpose of the legislation and is unnecessary because the 
bill contains specific criteria by which the EPA will judge State 
permit programs, and I listed those earlier.
  This is a politically appealing amendment, but it has many flaws, not 
the least of which is that any State can request that EPA review 
another State's coal combustion residual permit program, regardless of 
the location, and whether there is actually a cross-border impact.
  As my colleague pointed out in the Rules Committee on Tuesday, 
there's no requirement in this amendment that a State that requests a 
review needs to even be impacted by the contamination allegedly coming 
from another State.
  While my colleague has probably scoured the country to come up with 
an example or two of coal ash contamination crossing State lines, the 
fact of the matter is that cross boundary is not really an issue with 
respect to coal ash disposal because regulation of solid waste disposal 
is typically an issue that remains within the State.
  This amendment attempts to create another hook for the EPA to measure 
State coal combustion residuals permit programs using the subjective 
yardstick of what is protective of human

[[Page 12438]]

health and the environment, which my colleague did a good job defending 
in the other amendment.
  I understand that my colleague believes that the Federal Government 
must step in to save the day, but I trust that our State environmental 
regulators are up to the task of making sure that our communities are 
protected.
  This amendment diminishes the important role of the States, and I 
urge opposition to this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I respect the work done by my colleague from 
Illinois, but respectfully disagree with his assessment. There's ample 
evidence that States have poorly regulated, in some cases, this waste 
stream, and it puts at risk innocent bystanders who are impacted by 
their actions.
  And so I stand by the worthiness of this amendment, and again, 
encourage my colleagues to support it.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Tonko).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York will be postponed.


                       ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIR

  Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now resume on 
those amendments printed in part A of House Report 113-174 on which 
further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Waxman of California.
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Tonko of New York.
  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 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 CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 185, 
noes 231, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 415]

                               AYES--185

     Andrews
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--231

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Barletta
     Brown (FL)
     Burgess
     Campbell
     Cassidy
     Hanabusa
     Herrera Beutler
     Himes
     Holt
     Horsford
     McCarthy (NY)
     McIntyre
     Moore
     Nugent
     Pallone
     Rokita
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1106

  Mr. TIPTON and Mrs. KIRKPATRICK changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Messrs. COHEN, CUELLAR, and VELA changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Tonko

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.

[[Page 12439]]

  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 176, 
noes 239, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 416]

                               AYES--176

     Andrews
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--239

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Barletta
     Brown (FL)
     Campbell
     Hanabusa
     Herrera Beutler
     Himes
     Holt
     Horsford
     Hudson
     McCarthy (NY)
     McIntyre
     Messer
     Nugent
     Pallone
     Pelosi
     Rokita
     Smith (NJ)
     Young (FL)


                       Announcement by the Chair

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

                              {time}  1110

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


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Chair, on rollcall Nos. 415 Waxman Amend, and 416 
Tonko Amend, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on both.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the committee amendment in the nature 
of a substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Woodall) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bishop of Utah, 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. 2218) to 
amend subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act to encourage recovery 
and beneficial use of coal combustion residuals and establish 
requirements for the proper management and disposal of coal combustion 
residuals that are protective of human health and the environment, and, 
pursuant to House Resolution 315, he 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 any 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.

                              {time}  1115


                           Motion to Recommit

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

       Ms. McCollum moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 2218 to the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Page 7, after line 14, insert the following new clause:
       ``(i) Protecting drinking water and the great lakes.--The 
     implementing agency shall require that all wet disposal 
     structures meet criteria for design, construction, operation, 
     and maintenance sufficient to prevent contamination of 
     groundwater and sources of drinking water including the Great 
     Lakes.

  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the 
motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, 
which does not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, 
it will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.
  This bill is about coal ash. Coal ash is a toxic substance. It 
contains lead, selenium, mercury, cadmium, and arsenic. Coal ash is a 
deadly poison, and it must be kept out of America's drinking water.
  This bill needlessly puts millions of Americans at risk by doing 
nothing to

[[Page 12440]]

prevent coal ash from contaminating groundwater, surface water, and the 
greatest supply of freshwater on the Earth--the Great Lakes. The Great 
Lakes provide drinking water to more than 30 million people. Over 1.5 
million jobs are connected to the Great Lakes and more than $60 billion 
in annual wages.
  My amendment protects the Great Lakes from improper and dangerous 
storage of coal ash. This amendment ``requires that all wet disposal 
structures meet criteria for design, construction, operation, and 
maintenance sufficient to prevent contamination of surface and 
groundwater.'' This amendment recognizes that the Great Lakes are 
unique.
  Mayors and Governors in eight States are working together to maintain 
this vital ecosystem and economy for families, businesses, and future 
generations--even while this House considers an 80 percent cut to the 
Great Lakes Restorative Initiative.
  In addition, the Federal Government coordinates our efforts to 
protect, conserve, and restore the Great Lakes with our partner, 
Canada.
  The great United States has both a national and international 
interest in keeping these lakes clean and safe. Protecting the Great 
Lakes should be a priority for this Congress. I am certain it's a 
priority for the 30 million people who drink Great Lakes water. Without 
this amendment, they will be at risk of drinking cancer-causing toxins. 
Right now, coal ash is placed in unlined ponds, some that are leaking, 
leaching, and spilling into our soils, lakes, rivers, and aquifers.
  In 2011, near Milwaukee, a bluff collapsed, sending a utility 
company's coal ash directly into Lake Michigan. Residents could no 
longer drink their local water because of severe health threats imposed 
by the coal ash.
  Should a utility company be able to store tons and tons of coal ash 
in an unregulated ravine? The answer is, simply, ``no.''
  Unless Congress changes how coal ash is stored, the Great Lakes and 
America's drinking water will continue to be at risk. Congress can do 
something right here, right now by passing this amendment.
  If you want clean and safe drinking water, vote for this amendment. 
If you want to protect the Great Lakes, vote for this amendment. And if 
you want to protect recreation, manufacturing, and service jobs, vote 
for this amendment. If you have the courage to stand up to the 
polluters and say no longer will I allow coal ash to be inadvertently 
put in our drinking water, causing cancer for millions of Americans, 
vote for this amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order, and I claim 
the time in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order is withdrawn.
  The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, the basic premise of this bill is that the 
Federal Government can set safety standards and the States can enforce 
it, so reject the motion to instruct.
  I am going to turn my comments to people who live in the coal areas 
of our country. Coal is just not a commodity product, it is, really, a 
way of lifestyle if you live in coal country.
  I am a fourth-generation Lithuanian immigration family. My great-
grandfather went directly into the coalfields. My grandfather went into 
the coal mines at age 10. He performed the job of a trapper.
  In my hometown of Collinsville, Illinois, we have Miner's Theater; in 
a community up north, we have Miner's Park; and in Gillespie, Illinois, 
we have Black Diamond Days.
  Coal is a culture. Coal is who we are. That is why I really 
appreciate my colleagues from West Virginia, David McKinley and Shelley 
Moore Capito. There are some States in this Union that coal is their 
only job, and that's why they fight and they stand up for coal.
  I remember being with the late Senator Byrd in a rally on The Mall to 
save coal jobs. He held up his hands and he said, ``There's coal in 
these veins.'' This was Senator Byrd--``There's coal in these veins.''
  My colleagues and my friends, that's how we feel in coal-producing 
States in this country. It is part of who we are. It is our culture.
  Now, don't think this is a passe debate. There's a young Iraqi vet 
named Jimmy Rose. You may have seen him. He's 32 years old. He's also a 
coal miner. He's competing on ``America's Got Talent.'' Do you know 
what his song is? His song is ``Coal Keeps the Lights On.'' He talks 
about feeding his family. He talks about putting coal in the family 
household. He talks about that's their livelihood, that's their 
culture. It's an impassioned ballad for areas of our country that feel 
under attack, left behind, attacked by this administration.
  Mayor Dietz from McLeansboro, Illinois, is happy when new coal is 
opening up. Coal is keeping the lights on in the small communities and 
the shops and stores for a community that's kind of been left behind 
for 40 years. He's excited about the jobs and the tax base that's 
coming because of coal.
  I'm asking you, my colleagues, to stand up for coal, because coal 
keeps the lights on. I request that you reject this amendment and 
support the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 5-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-
minute votes on the question on passage of the bill, if ordered, and 
the question on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if 
ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 192, 
noes 225, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 417]

                               AYES--192

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz

[[Page 12441]]


     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--225

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barr
     Barton
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Benishek
       

                             NOT VOTING--15
                                    
                                    

     Barletta
     Brown (FL)
     Campbell
     Hanabusa
     Herrera Beutler
     Himes
     Holt
     Horsford
     McCarthy (NY)
     Nunes
     Pallone
     Rokita
     Sires
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1129

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, July 25, 2013, I was unable to 
be present for rollcall votes 415, 416 and 417 on H.R. 2218. Had I been 
present, I would have voted: ``yea'' on rollcall vote 415, ``yea'' on 
rollcall vote 416, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 417.
  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 265, 
noes 155, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 418]

                               AYES--265

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Beatty
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Doyle
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Enyart
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Kelly (PA)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vargas
     Vela
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--155

     Andrews
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Braley (IA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     O'Rourke
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Wolf
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Barletta
     Brown (FL)
     Campbell
     Hanabusa
     Herrera Beutler
     Holt
     Horsford
     McCarthy (NY)
     Pallone
     Rokita
     Serrano
     Sires
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1139

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[[Page 12442]]

  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall 418 on final passage of H.R. 
2218, the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act of 2013, I 
incorrectly recorded my vote as ``no.'' I intended to vote ``yes.''


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 415 on the Waxman 
amendment, I am not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``no.''
  Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 416 on the Tonko amendment, I am not 
recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 417 on the Motion to Recommit, I am not 
recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 418 on final passage of H.R. 2218, the 
Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act of 2013, I am not recorded. Had 
I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I missed the following votes during this week:
  On rollcall vote 375, on Passage of H.R. 1542, I would have voted 
``aye.''
  On rollcall vote 376, on Passage of H. Con. Res. 44, I would have 
voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall vote 377, on Ordering the Previous Question to H. Res. 
312, I would have voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall vote 378, on Agreeing to H. Res. 312, I would have voted 
``no.''
  On rollcall vote 379, Gabbard amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have 
voted ``nay.''
  On rollcall vote 380, Blumenauer amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have 
voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall vote 381, Polis amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have 
voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall vote 382, Blumenauer amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have 
voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall vote 383, Nugent amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have 
voted ``nay.''
  On rollcall vote 384, Nadler amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have 
voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall vote 385, Moran amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have 
voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall vote 386, Poe amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have voted 
``aye.''
  On rollcall vote 387, Walberg amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have 
voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall vote 388, Cicilline amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have 
voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall vote 389, Cohen amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have 
voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall vote 390, Coffman amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have 
voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall vote 391, Garamendi amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have 
voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall vote 392, Fleming amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have 
voted ``nay.''
  On rollcall vote 393, Rigell amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have 
voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall vote 394, Flores amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have 
voted ``nay.''
  On rollcall vote 395, DeLauro amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have 
voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall vote 396, Lee amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have voted 
``aye.''
  On rollcall vote 397, Quigley amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have 
voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall vote 398, Denham amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have 
voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall vote 415, on agreeing to the Waxman amendment, I would 
have voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall vote 416, on agreeing to the Tonko amendment, I would 
have voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall vote 417, on Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 2218, I 
would have voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall vote 418, on Passage of H.R. 2218, I would have voted 
``no.''

                          ____________________