[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 202 (Friday, December 21, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H10558-H10560]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ALASKA REMOTE GENERATOR RELIABILITY AND PROTECTION ACT
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (S. 1934) to prevent catastrophic failure or shutdown of remote
diesel power engines due to emission control devices, and for other
purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
S. 1934
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Alaska Remote Generator
Reliability and Protection Act''.
SEC. 2. REVISION OF REGULATIONS REQUIRED.
(a) In General.--The Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall revise section 60.4216(c) of title
40, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of
enactment of this Act), by striking ``that was not
certified'' and all that follows through ``compared to
engine-out emissions'' and inserting ``must have that engine
certified as meeting at least Tier 3 PM standards''.
(b) Emissions and Energy Reliability Study.--Not later than
1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in
consultation with the Secretary of Energy, shall submit to
the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate
and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of
Representatives a report assessing options for the Federal
Government to assist remote areas in the State of Alaska in
meeting the energy needs of those areas in an affordable and
reliable manner using--
(1) existing emissions control technology; or
(2) other technology that achieves emissions reductions
similar to the technology described in paragraph (1).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
General Leave
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and insert extraneous materials in the Record on the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is a targeted exemption for remote villages in
Alaska from EPA's most recent emissions rules on diesel generators.
EPA and State officials have found that diesel generators compliant
with the most recent standards do not work reliably in harsh, cold
winter conditions. To preserve the health and safety of the people
relying on diesel generators, these are less strict but actually
workable standards.
Our colleagues in the Senate passed this bill with unanimous consent.
It is reasonable legislation that deserves our support.
I see Senators Whitehouse and Carper were supportive of this bill. It
comes out of the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. Speaker, I ask our colleagues to support it, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S. 1934, which would roll
back public health standards under the Clean Air Act for dirty diesel
generating units in remote areas of Alaska.
This legislation would undermine protections for human health,
protections for the environment, and protections for our climate.
Adding insult to injury, this bill is being brought up under
suspension of the rules at the last minute, over the objections of
Democrats.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce, which has jurisdiction over the
Clean Air Act and where I serve as the Environment Subcommittee ranking
member, held no hearings on this subject nor considered any legislation
relating to this matter.
EPA already gives special considerations for diesel generators in
remote areas of Alaska. These special considerations allow remote areas
to use stationary diesel generators that are certified to marine engine
standards rather than more stringent land-based, nonroad engines.
However, all diesel generators in these areas that are model year
2014 or later, and not for emergency use, must be certified to meet
EPA's tier 4 emission standards. If they cannot meet tier 4 standards,
then they must meet certain alternative requirements for particulate
matter or install an emission control device that reduces PM emissions.
S. 1934 directs the EPA Administrator to revise downward the existing
New Source Performance Standards for diesel generators, so that these
units would have to meet only EPA's tier 3 standards rather than the
more protective tier 4 criteria.
Certainly, it is legitimate for Congress to consider assisting these
remote areas with unique power needs and pollution problems. However,
we should be looking to help these areas obtain cleaner, healthier air,
not rolling back standards and pretending that the pollution and
associated health and environmental problems don't exist.
Further, I note that the bill directs the EPA, in consultation with
the Department of Energy, to submit a report assessing options for the
Federal Government to meet the energy needs of remote areas in the
State of Alaska in an affordable and reliable manner while addressing
air emissions. That study is the right first step, and I would be happy
to support it and then work with my colleagues to find ways to help
these areas, based on the results of that particular study.
Unfortunately, this bill takes the backward approach of rolling back
standards and then studying the problem. Perhaps if our Republican
colleagues had come to us sooner than this week, we might have been
able to find a way to come together on legislation.
Unfortunately, Republicans have chosen to take this up without
consultation, at the last minute, over our objections. They have left
us no option other than to fight. I wish it were otherwise.
For the past 2 years, the Trump administration has engaged in a
consistent effort to undermine the Clean Air Act and its protections
for everything from mercury and hazardous air pollutants to smog and
particulate matter.
We have seen the Trump administration walk away from the Paris
climate agreement, undo the Clean Power Plan, and gut fuel economy and
greenhouse gas standards for motor vehicles. We must continue to stand
firm against these actions that endanger public health, our continued
economic well-being, and most certainly our planet.
Mr. Speaker, with that, I urge my colleagues to stand up for our
public health, for our climate, and against those continued rollbacks
of our Nation's most successful environmental statute, the Clean Air
Act.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote a strong ``no'' on S. 1934,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Alaska (Mr. Young), the only House Member from Alaska and the dean of
the House.
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for bringing
this up.
This is not a Trump bill. This is a bill that affects one area:
Alaska. This bill was asked for by the people who live in Alaska, not
New Yorkers, by people who need power, that have not had power. It has
been put in, in the past, they can't meet these standards imposed by
the EPA. It doesn't work in the cold climate. They do not have the
money to buy new generators.
Some say we have to protect their health. The gentleman from New York
is going to shut down the clinics, the schools, and individual homes
that cannot be heated, because there will be no electricity. There are
no roads.
I am talking about small villages, 60 people, 25 people. They all
have generators now that are outdated, but that is the only thing they
can afford.
You know, we hear a lot from that side of the aisle, and sometimes
this
[[Page H10559]]
side, about how we are protecting the people. Well, let's see how you
are protecting them when they don't have healthcare, and they don't
have schools. You really are helping them out.
As usual, the other side of this aisle, unfortunately, stands on this
House floor and says what is best for people when they haven't the
slightest idea.
You know, I don't wish bad luck on anybody, but maybe we want to have
a blackout in New York and see how you would feel in a snowstorm. Maybe
we would have some people understand that you are affecting people's
lives directly by not supporting this bill.
This is a Senate bill that passed unanimously, supported by Tom
Carper, supported by Ed Markey, supported by, I think, every Senator.
It doesn't have opposition on the House floor.
Unfortunately, this is under suspension, and you will probably have
enough votes to defeat this bill. Go home and feel good, say: I did the
Lord's work. I kept the air clean. I protected the people.
And you are full of it, really full of it. You are hurting the
people, hurting my Alaskans, my rural Alaskans.
I stand on this floor and watch this time and time again. Why would
you oppose something that is going to help people? Impose an unfunded
mandate on these villages is what, very frankly, the EPA has done.
The new ones, I might see, but the ones that are established there, I
would suggest, respectfully, we ought to let them use that, so they
could have heat in their houses, not air-conditioning. They can keep
their food frozen. They can have their clinics take care of their
people. And their schools can stay open.
These rural communities of my Alaska Natives, that is who you are
hurting.
I hear it all the time: We are going to help the impoverished. We are
going to help the poor.
You are not helping them. You are hurting them.
When you go to sleep tonight in your nice, warm house, and you fly in
your nice plane, and you get in your nice car and feel good about
helping the poor people, I say you are hurting them.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, just to help clarify the argument,
obviously, I have a few questions.
Define an isolated village.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. A village has, probably, no roads, only an
airport, small, fuel has to be shipped in by air or by boat.
Mr. SHIMKUS. How long would that flight be?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. It depends. In some areas, it is 3 hours, and
you are having to fly in the fuel.
They have had this generator. They had enough money to buy it maybe
10, 15 years ago, and now they will have to put on a so-called air
cleaner. They don't have the knowledge to run it, and it doesn't work.
Mr. SHIMKUS. How many people are in an isolated village?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Oh, 25, 50, 100. My village that I live in has
got 550. That is all.
To give you an idea, if the gentleman would yield to me for a second:
If you took Alaska, all the land east of the Mississippi River, to the
Atlantic Ocean, to the tip of Maine, to the tip of Florida, that is
part of Alaska. In that area that I am talking about, Maine to Florida,
there are 253 Congressmen and 52 Senators. Think about that.
{time} 1130
Think about that. Why I say that, there are no roads, and you are
going to punish those people who finally got enough money to buy an
older generator by the EPA, an unfunded mandate, and say you are
helping them.
Mr. SHIMKUS. If the gentleman will continue to yield for a last
question, I hear that these new generators cost around $66,000 to
$75,000?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. More than that. Usually, in that area, probably
about $150,000, if.
Mr. SHIMKUS. So if you have 60 people, that is $1,000 each.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. By the way, there is no income. This is a
poverty subsistence-style life.
They do have a school trying to improve their lot. They do have a
clinic trying to help their health. But you are going take the power
away because you want to keep the air pure?
Shame on you.
Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank my colleague for yielding.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I respect and I share the gentleman's concern
for the people of Alaska. I am talking about a bill that is drafted
incorrectly. While it may be specific to Alaska, it is not specific to
remote areas.
So we can share compassion for the people. I am just saying, if we
had done this in regular order and exchanged dialogue with one another,
perhaps the outcome would have been stronger.
Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Walden), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois and my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
I spent about a year in Alaska going to college, have been back a
number of times, and it is, as the gentleman from Alaska describes, a
very unique area. It is unlike anywhere else in America.
When you get out into these remote villages, you may fly in in a
small Cessna airplane, land on a gravel strip, as I have done, and get
out, and there may only be 25 or 50 people there. That is it.
By the way, in the winter, it can be--what?--50, 60 below. I have
seen that. And I have seen it in spring at break where we had to try to
take off three different times on a runway because it had begun to
soften up. The snow had begun to soften up, and we had to get out of
the plane, turn it around, get back in. Eventually, we had to leave one
guy behind in order to get off the ground. This is a very unique place.
The poverty that the gentleman from Alaska describes is very real.
So, yes, of course, I wish we had had more time to work this out.
And to my colleague from New York, he and I have worked out most of
these things along the way quite well. This bill came to us late, and,
frankly, we didn't have time to deal with all of the finite pieces.
Perhaps we could go back in the next session and do that, but this is
before us today. The problem is before us today.
I believe this is a reasonable solution and that we should pass it.
So, Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to approve this bill and
send it to the President. I commit to work to make it even better next
year.
I won't be the chairman, I understand that, but Mr. Tonko, Mr.
Speaker, will be, I think, the chairman of the Environment
Subcommittee, and I would work with him and the gentleman from Alaska.
But this is the time, as we know, when things finally get done, and
they may not be perfect, but in this case, I would err on the side of
passing this bill and then fine-tweak it later if we have to.
This is a real serious issue in these tiny, remote, impoverished
villages. I would defer to the gentleman from Alaska, who knows it
better than any of us, and encourage passage of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to pay tribute, in closing, to our chief
counsel on the committee, Karen Christian, who will be leaving us at
the end of this Congress. She has been a remarkable member of the
staff, engaged in the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee for
years, doing incredible work, and is going off to greener pastures.
After 13 years in the committee, I just want to say to Karen: Thank
you for your service. Thank you for your leadership. We are going to
miss you. Good luck to you and your family
Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I'm
convinced we have the best members in Congress and the best staff. In
her thirteen years with the Committee, Karen Christian has been one of
our finest. At the end of this Congress, Karen will move on, and while
we are sad to see her do, we wish her well.
Karen joined the Committee in 2006 as a counsel on our Oversight and
Investigations Subcommittee. She's served as both the deputy chief
counsel and chief counsel of that subcommittee, and for the last four
years she
[[Page H10560]]
has served as general counsel of the Committee.
As deputy chief counsel, Karen led several major Committee
investigations, including investigations into the Department of
Energy's management of the Loan Guarantee Program, including a failed
loan guarantee to Solyndra; the stimulus bill, American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act; cyber security and critical infrastructure, including
an investigation of Huawei Technologies; and the Federal Communications
Commission's handling of a license application from LightSquared.
As chief counsel, she led the Committee's investigations into General
Motors ignition switch safety failures; the implementation of the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, including the failure of
HealthCare.gov; the fungal meningitis outbreak due to contaminated
drugs; mental health care and treatment, including federal programs
related mental health and serious mental illness; the opioid addiction
epidemic; and the Environmental Protection Agency's consideration of
carbon capture technologies in developing greenhouse gas emissions
standards for new power plants.
And as general counsel, Karen has been responsible for overseeing and
managing the legislative process for the entire Committee--that
includes a 27-hour, marathon markup in March 2017 and regularly
battling to preserve the Committee's jurisdiction.
By every measure, Karen's time at the Committee has been a complete
success. While we are sad to lose our friend, we look forward to seeing
her next accomplishments.
Karen, we wish you and your family--Dave, Christian, Andrew, and
Charlotte the very best. We thank you for your service, your hard work,
your guidance, and most of all your friendship. Your work made a
difference . . . America is better because of your efforts.
Thank you and remember--at Energy and Commerce, the fun never stops.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, to Karen, from this side of the aisle, I wish
her well, too. It was enjoyable working with her, and I look forward to
working with the Members of the other side of the aisle in the 116th
Congress on this issue and others.
Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers, so I will close saying that
I am concerned about the loosely defined language in this bill. I am
concerned about the attacks on the Clean Air Act that are so important
to all Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I will just continue to respond to what the
chairman said.
I think if we are going to err, we ought to err on the health and
safety of Alaskans. I hope my colleagues will join us. I look forward
to working with them in the next Congress?
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 1934, a bill
that would roll back standards under the Clean Air Act (CAA) for diesel
generating units in ``remote areas'' of Alaska. I understand the
motivation behind this bill, but it could set a precedent for weakening
existing New Source Performance Standards for diesel generators not
just in Alaska, but across the United States.
I am committed to finding ways to help Alaskans in remote areas have
affordable electricity while maintain health protections. Congress
should tackle this issue with an open debate through regular order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, S. 1934.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
____________________