John Shimkus

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, this Chamber has a lot of heroes. Sam Johnson is one of those. I am proud to have followed him, and I salute him. I have been fortunate to do many things. I was an Army officer in West Germany, a high school teacher, and a local elected official. Now, as a Member of Congress, I am honored to cast votes for the people that I represent. My constituents want the President to follow the law, as is his responsibility under article II of the Constitution. The President did not submit all the necessary documents as required under the law. I and my constituents want to know what is in these side agreements. To my colleague from Maryland, those assurances are not good enough when we are going down this path of peace and war to trust the IAEA with no documents, not being able to see that. Our primary responsibility here is to protect our citizens against all enemies, foreign and domestic. This deal gives Iran more money. They will remain the number one state sponsor of terror. They will continue to chant ``death to America'' and ``death to Israel.'' They will not free our citizens. Now, we assure that Iran will get nuclear weapons; the region will go into a nuclear arms race, and the world and the U.S. will be less safe. This is a terrible deal, an embarrassing deal, and one we will regret in the future. Vote to fully disclose this deal; vote against the deal, and vote to keep the sanctions on.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the celebration of the 70th year of Albert ``Red'' Schoendienst in professional baseball. During his years involved with professional baseball, 45 seasons were in uniform with the St. Louis Cardinals as a player, manager, and coach. He is still currently involved with the organization as a special assistant to the manager. The organization, players, and fans will be celebrating Red all season long using the hashtag #LoveRed2. His career with the Cardinals started in 1945 when he left his hometown of Germantown, Illinois, here in the 15th District. He quickly developed into one of the best hitting and fielding second basemen of all time. With multiple World Series wins and National League pennants won as both a player and a coach and as a member of the Baseball Hall of Fame, I am honored to recognize such an accomplished athlete who hails from the district. I look forward to Red's continued involvement with the Cardinals for many years to come.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge The Major Case Squad of Greater St. Louis in celebrating 50 years of investigative excellence to the St. Louis Area. This multi-jurisdictional Major Crime Investigative Task Force was established in 1965 to unite the most qualified investigators from Illinois and Missouri law enforcement agencies within the Greater St. Louis Metropolitan area. The goal was to establish a cooperative effort to investigate and provide an expeditious solution to the most heinous crimes constituting a community threat. Since its inception the Major Case Squad has investigated thousands of crimes and is proud of the fact that more than 86 percent have resulted in arrest clearance with an incredibly high criminal conviction rate. Throughout the 50 years of operational success, the men and women of the Major Case Squad have perfected the investigative process to deliver a swift and professional response to violent crimes that affect the Greater St. Louis Metropolitan area.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the celebration of the 25th Anniversary of Elastec/American Marine. Elastec/American Marine is a company that manufactures pollution recovery systems, focusing in international oil spill recovery. The company has over 100 employees, and its headquarters are located in Carmi, Illinois, with another location in Fairfield, Illinois, that opened in 2012. The company has received numerous awards for not only its products, but its employees and operations as well. Twenty-five years ago, CEO Donnie Wilson and VP Jeff Cantrell combined their skills to create a drum oil skimmer and established Elastec. Over the years, with investors, Director Bill Harmon, the continuing development of systems and products, among other contributors, Elastec/American Marine has become a leader in manufacturing systems of pollution recovery. These systems and products reach over 145 countries. I am honored to have a company that is recognized for such work within my district, and I look forward to hearing about its continued success.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mooney).

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I share my colleague's concern for transparency, and I too want to make sure that the public has access to all relevant information. The State certification program would have State public access through the State EPA, and that is in this bill. So there is public access to information. H.R. 1734 accomplishes the goal by making sure the public has access to information and guaranteeing that the public will be involved with the decisionmaking process because it requires public participation in the permitting process, and it requires States to make available on the Internet such information as: all groundwater monitoring data, information regarding structural stability assessments, emergency action plans and emergency response plans, fugitive dust controls, certifications of closures, corrective action remedies, and all documents associated with the permitting process. I would like to point out that Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response at EPA, indicated at our legislative hearing that States making the information available on the Internet was just as good as requiring owners and operators of disposal units putting it on their Web site. All that said, I understand my colleague's belief that the public would be better served by having utilities create individual Web sites where the same information could be posted, and I offered to work with him to improve his amendment so that it would have accomplished his goal of having individual utility Web sites and removing references to confidential business information but would also have continued to ensure that States would make information available. I regret that we were unable to come to an agreement. I am willing to work with the gentleman on this issue as we move forward, and I regret that I have to urge a ``no'' vote on his amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 1734.

Mr. SHIMKUS. We have had a good afternoon on debating the many amendments that have been brought forward. Let me just briefly, in this short time, talk about what we have done. We have taken the recent EPA rule and codified it. In other words, we set it into statutory language so it can be enforceable. That allows States to set up State permitting programs that can be enforced. We trust States with what we call the Solid Waste Disposal Act, which is RCRA, to protect the Great Lakes. I think we can trust the States, in working with minimal Federal standards, to do the same thing. The EPA, three times, has determined that coal ash is not toxic--the EPA has determined three times. In 1993, in 2000, and with their recently released rule in December, they said coal ash is not toxic. I am going to end on two letters that we mentioned in the bill markups and on the floor. We have the group called ECOS, Environmental Council of the States, which all the States' EPA directors; and also another group, called ASTSWMO, which is the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, which is in all territories; and the Western Governors' Association. There is not a single dissent. The Western Governors' Association includes California, Oregon, and Washington State. They all support H.R. 1734 because it actually does the opposite of what my colleague claimed. It strengthens the law. It codifies our ability to enforce the result so that our communities are safe. I appreciate my colleague's motion. I ask my colleagues to reject it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment makes a technical and conforming change to the bill. Let me explain. The final rule amends part 257 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. EPA put out a prepublication version on the final rule on December 19, 2014, meaning that it was public, but had not yet been published in the Federal Register. H.R. 1734 directly incorporates the requirements in the EPA's final rule, and so there are numerous citations in the bill to the Code of Federal Regulations because, as of the date of our full committee markup, the final rule had not yet been published in the Federal Register and thus did not have a final citation in the Code of Federal Regulations. It was necessary to include in the bill a reference to the date of prepublication of the final rule and include a paragraph regarding references to the Code of Federal Regulations. The final rule was published in the Federal Register on April 17, 2015; and as of that date, citations to the final rule were appropriately cited as citations to 40 CFR 257. My amendment simply removes the paragraph from the bill that was added as a placeholder until a final rule was published in the Federal Register. I urge all Members to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I appreciate my colleague bringing up this amendment. I just wish she, as a member of the committee, I wish we would have seen this in the markup of the full committee and the committee because maybe we could have just inserted it into the bill instead of having it as an amendment on the floor. I understand the gentlewoman's passion. I just wish, through regular order, we probably could have disposed of this in the committee process. Having said that, the gentlewoman's amendment takes steps to more closely conform the bill to the EPA rule with respect to cleanup requirements, which is the entire intent of this bill. The intent of the bill is to codify the EPA rule, and so the gentlewoman's amendment helps us do that, and I appreciate that. I agree with the gentlewoman that it approves a protectiveness of State permit programs. Again, the key thing about H.R. 1734, it creates State permit programs so that the States have Federal standards and they have an enforceable permit program which they can enforce, just like we do on solid waste. I have no objection to the amendment. It is going to improve the bill, and I accept it on our side. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to my colleague from North Dakota, let me just respond in that, in the final rule, they didn't close the door to regulating coal ash as toxic. They can re-regulate. They can promulgate a new regulation and then call it toxic. So then you have the fly ash and the concrete in the school and the school has to get torn down because it has got fly ash in it? It makes no sense. So that is why we need to codify the science, which the EPA has twice, now three times, said coal ash is not toxic. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time remains for each side?

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley), a real fighter for coal in the country.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, we applaud the activity of the State of North Carolina--and that is the whole benefit of H.R. 1734--because the Federal regulation proposed by EPA is a floor. And through a State certification program, if the States want to ramp that up to a higher level, they can. So what North Carolina has done is able to be done under the current legislation. But the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from North Carolina has a lot of problems, and that is why I rise in opposition. It would require each owner of a surface impoundment to provide EPA or a State certain types of data about all drinking water supply wells, to pay for and perform groundwater sampling at these wells, provide alternate sources of water, and issue regular reports on these activities. I understand the gentlewoman's concern, but I am not sure she gets there with this amendment. She talks about providing certainty. Well, there is already certainty to do this under Federal law. Under the Superfund law, which we call CERCLA, EPA already has the authority to obtain information, access property, and inspect and sample wells if there is a ``reasonable basis to believe there may be a release or a threat of release.'' So there is already certainty under that law. Not only does CERCLA already cover what the gentlewoman is proposing, but the Safe Drinking Water Act provides the same authority. The amendment would require owners or operators of coal ash disposal units to provide an alternative source of drinking water if wells are found to exceed existing Safe Drinking Water Act standards. But section 1431 of the Safe Drinking Water Act already allows EPA to require that alternative sources of drinking water be provided if EPA has information that a contaminant ``is likely to enter a public water system or an underground source of drinking water.'' So we already have that in Federal statute, especially if it ``may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to the health of persons.'' Beyond the duplication existing in the law that we already have, there are also concerns with the amendment. The amendment focuses on drinking water wells that are one-half mile down-gradient from a surface impoundment. This seems an arbitrary determination, that for all States and for all impoundments, that that is where the groundwater is. And that is definitely not true around the country. Can we be sure that this is the correct distance? Why was that number selected? The amendment would require the owners or operators to provide an alternative source of drinking water within 24 hours. While we completely understand the need to move quickly to provide a solution, it may not be feasible to secure an alternate source of drinking water within that short a period of time. Perhaps of greater concern, the amendment includes key terms like ``drinking water supply well'' that are undefined, and the amendment would trump all other groundwater monitoring requirements required by the EPA final rule and State permit programs. We are not trying to re-create existing authority. Rather, we are focused on getting the folks with the most experience and knowledge of this issue to address coal ash disposal units and ensure that they are not causing contamination. But I assure you that H.R. 1734 already mandates that, if disposal units are causing problems, States will utilize all available authorities to ensure that their citizens have safe drinking water. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to my colleague from Florida, let me respond. I am just trying to figure out whether the other side believes it is toxic or not toxic and if they trust the EPA or don't trust the EPA, because the EPA has ruled twice--in 1993 and 2000--that it was toxic. Then they roll out the final rule, which the other side is defending, and they say it is not toxic. The other side's debating point is really why we need the bill, because uncertainty is being created with the recyclable and reuse people. What was just talked about should cause everyone who is in the recyclable and reuse industry to say, ``We were right; we need this bill'' because the EPA, in 1993 and 2000, and the final rule. That is one part of the reason why we need the bill is to close that loophole because, yes, it is kind of ironic for me to be supporting the EPA, but the EPA has said it is not toxic. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in December of last year, EPA put out its final rule for coal ash. We applaud EPA's decision to regulate coal ash under subtitle D, confirming what we have been saying all along, that coal ash is not hazardous. All you have to do is talk to any of the thousands of coal ash recyclers across the country, and they will tell you that not only is coal ash not hazardous, it is an essential component in their product. However, the rule remains seriously flawed; and implementation will result in confusion, conflict, and a lot of needless litigation. A fundamental flaw with the rule is that it is self-implementing, which means that, now that EPA has finalized the rule, going forward, there will be zero regulatory oversight of coal ash by the EPA. What this means is that all of the requirements in the final rule, no matter how protective you believe they are, will be interpreted and implemented by the utilities with no oversight or enforcement by the EPA or the States. This leads us to one of the other key flaws with the final rule, which is that it is enforceable only through citizen suits. Think about that; the final rule sets out a complex set of technical requirements for coal ash, but interpreting what they mean and how to implement them is left entirely to the regulated community with citizen lawsuits in Federal Court as the only mechanism for enforcement. This will result in an unpredictable array of regulatory interpretations as judges throughout the country are forced to make technical compliance decisions that are better left to a regulatory agency. Under current law, State permit programs will not operate in lieu of the final coal ash rule. Even if States adopt the final rule, regulated entities must comply with the requirements in the Federal rule and their State. This means, even if a utility was in full compliance with their State coal ash permit, they could and would be sued for noncompliance with the Federal rule. The Western Governors' Association said it best in a letter to the House and Senate leadership on May 15 of this year: Unfortunately, EPA's final rule produces an unintended regulatory consequence in that it creates a dual Federal and State regulatory system. This is because EPA is not allowed under RCRA subtitle D to delegate the CCR program to States in lieu of the Federal program. Also, the rule does not require facilities to obtain permits, does not require States to adopt and implement new rules, and cannot be enforced by EPA. The rule's only compliance mechanism is for a State or citizen group to bring a citizen suit in Federal District Court under RCRA section 7002. This approach marginalizes the role of State regulation, oversight, and enforcement. This brings us to where we are today, in need of legislative solution to address the fundamental flaws with the final rule. H.R. 1734 is the solution. The bill addresses the self-implementing aspect of the final rule, as well as the problem with citizen suit enforcement, by establishing enforceable permit programs that directly incorporate the technical requirements of the final rule. The bill will ensure that every State has a coal ash permit program, that every permit program will contain all of the minimal Federal standards or something more stringent, and that the technical requirements of EPA's final rule are implemented with direct regulatory oversight and enforcement. The bill requires owners and operators to take actions such as preparing a fugitive dust control plan and conducting structural stability inspections within 8 months from the date of enactment, which makes compliance with these and other requirements directly in line with the timeframe for compliance under the final rule. Notably, H.R. 1734 also requires owners and operators to begin groundwater monitoring within 36 months from the date of enactment with State environmental agencies immediately ensuring compliance, rather than having to wait for the courts. It treats inactive surface impoundments in exactly the same manner as the final rule; applies all of the location restrictions from the final rule to the new surface impoundments and expansions of existing impoundments; and will ensure all relevant information--including all information associated with the issuance of permits, all groundwater monitoring data, structural stability assessments, emergency action plans, fugitive dust control plans, information regarding corrective action remedies, and certifications regarding closure--be made available on the Internet. H.R. 1734 expressly protects the ability to file citizen suits under RCRA while ensuring parties to a lawsuit demonstrate actual harm from the coal ash and not just that a utility allegedly violated the requirements of the rule. Some say that the bill ``goes too far'' because it allows States to exercise flexibility and make site-specific, risk-based decisions. Others say that the bill is a ``giveaway'' to the utilities or that allowing the States to exercise the same flexibility available under other RCRA permit programs ``weakens'' the requirement of the final rule. To that, we say H.R. 1734 simply gives the States the same authority to implement coal ash permit programs that they have for other RCRA subtitle D and even subtitle C permit programs. We trust the States are in the best position to analyze the local conditions and make risk-based permit decisions. We also know EPA trusts the States because EPA relies on the States for the implementation and enforcement of RCRA. As we have heard before from the Environmental Council of the States and the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials and from the States themselves, they welcome the new minimum Federal requirements, are up to the task of regulating coal ash, and strongly support H.R. 1734. In addition to ECOS and ASTSWMO, H.R. 1734 enjoys support from a wide array of stakeholders, including Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, Edison Electric Institute, the National Rural Electric Cooperative, American Public Power Association, the Western Governors Association I mentioned earlier, American Coal Ash Association, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley).

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I rise to speak in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give thanks to God and publicly celebrate the 65th wedding anniversary of my mom and dad, Gene and Kathy Shimkus. Dad was raised by his grandparents, Charles Frederick and Dorothea Heinicke. He has been a lifetime member at Holy Cross Lutheran Church and School. Mom was raised in State Park, just down the road from Collinsville, by Harvey and Myrtle Mondy. They are both graduates of Collinsville High School, dad in 1946 and mom in 1949. Dad started working for the telephone company in high school, and mom worked as a telephone operator. Mom and dad got married on July 22, 1950, 65 years ago today. Dad was drafted during the Korean war and left for Korea. On August 3, 1951, their first child, Bill, was born. Dad returned from the war and continued to work for the telephone company and then various telephone companies as the industry changed. Using the GI Bill, he also received his associate's degree from Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. Mom started her career and one that she has kept throughout known time as mother and now matriarch of the family. From here, the family grew as Dorothy, Joan, Helen, Jean, Jana, and I were born. The kids grew up to become a pastor, teacher, healthcare worker, CPA, and even a politician. Bill now lives in the Northwest and is married to Bette. They have three children, Matthew, Maria, and Emily. Dorothy has two boys, Terry and Dusty. Joan is married to Bernie and has two children, Niki and Tim. Karen and I are married with sons David, Joshua, and Daniel. Helen is married to Pat and lives in Tennessee. They have two daughters, Jennifer and Katelyn. Jean has two sons, Adam and Gene, as well as a daughter, Elizabeth. Jana is married to Chris. There are nine great- grandchildren. In an era where everything seems to be disposable, it is helpful and uplifting to see something that has lasted. For things to last, you have to work at it. Thank you, Mom and Dad, for teaching us about life. We have survived the good and the bad and, for the most part, have done it united as a family. The Shimkus clan will celebrate this accomplishment through this weekend by just spending time together. Our gathering culminates with attending church together on Sunday. We have much to be thankful for, but mostly for God's undeserved love in sending his son, Jesus, to die on the cross and rising again for our salvation. Congratulations, Mom and Dad, and thank you for being the parents that you are. General Leave