[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 12, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H308-H323]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 SUPPORTING TRANSPARENT REGULATORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIONS IN MINING 
                                  ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 1644.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 583 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. 1644.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1431


                     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. 1644) to amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 
1977 to ensure transparency in the development of environmental 
regulations, and for other purposes, with Mr. Paulsen 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 Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lowenthal) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1644, the Supporting 
Transparent Regulatory and Environmental Actions in Mining Act, or the 
STREAM Act for short.
  The STREAM Act has three goals. First, it establishes a requirement 
for scientific transparency and integrity in any rulemaking conducted 
by the Office of Surface Mining--we will be calling that OSM during our 
debate--under the authority of the Surface Mining Control and 
Reclamation Act of 1977. Some people call it SMCRA.
  In the past, the Office of Surface Mining, or OSM, has sought to 
promulgate rules based on internal studies that are not made public. 
The first section of H.R. 1644, the STREAM Act, ensures transparency by 
requiring OSM to publish all scientific products it relies on in the 
rulemaking process.
  For federally funded scientific products, the STREAM Act requires OSM 
to also publish raw data. If a scientific product is withheld from the 
public for more than 6 months, then the rule, environmental analysis, 
or economic assessment it supports will be withdrawn.
  The second goal is to require an independent third-party assessment 
of the existing 1983 rule--which we are operating under right now--to 
determine if any deficiencies exist. The purpose of the independent 
study is to mitigate the polarization of this issue.
  As such, the STREAM Act requires the Secretary of the Interior, in 
consultation with the Interstate Mining Compact Commission, to contract 
with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of the 1983 
stream buffer zone rule.
  Mr. Chairman, this study will examine the effectiveness of the 
existing 1983 rule by the National Academy of Sciences and make 
recommendations for improving the rule, if necessary.
  The Secretary is prohibited from issuing any regulations addressing 
stream buffer zones or stream protection until 1 year after the 
completion of the study and is required to take into consideration the 
findings or recommendations of the study.
  This element of the STREAM Act is important because it ensures that 
the 24 States with primacy over surface mining will have input on the 
study. Unfortunately, beginning in 2011, OSM completely shut the States 
out of the rulemaking process, even though OSM had signed memoranda of 
understanding with 10 cooperating agency States in 2010 and one other 
State signing on as a commentator.
  According to OSM, ``States permit and regulate 97 percent of the 
Nation's coal production. States and tribes also abate well over 90 
percent of the abandoned mine lands problems.'' That is in the words of 
OSM.
  The expertise for understanding the stream protection rule and other 
regulations promulgated under the Surface Mining Control and 
Reclamation Act lies with the States, not with OSM. Yet, the States 
were completely cut out of the rulemaking process.
  The third goal, finally, of H.R. 1644 is to inhibit OSM's regulatory 
overreach by curtailing regulatory action that would duplicate, 
enforce, or determine compliance with laws that are outside of OSM's 
jurisdiction.
  An express concern related to the ongoing stream buffer zone rule 
rewrite is

[[Page H309]]

that OSM has sought to interpret and enforce the Clean Water Act, which 
is outside of its authority, by establishing a new set of water quality 
monitoring, evaluation standards, and procedures. In fact, the draft 
rule amends 475 existing rules promulgated under SMCRA, the Surface 
Mining Control and Reclamation Act.
  OSM used the rulemaking process to rewrite the Surface Mining Control 
and Reclamation Act of 1977 and went well outside of Congress' intent 
in writing that law.
  Also--and this is amazingly shortsighted for our economic and energy 
future as a country--the draft rule released in July 2015 would freeze 
or sterilize more than 60 percent of the Nation's coal reserves.
  If the draft rule, as written, is finalized, the administration will 
expose the U.S. taxpayer to takings litigation. This has happened 
before. An example would be the Whitney Benefits case in Wyoming that 
involved a regulatory taking of coal reserves that underlie alluvial 
material.
  Passage of the STREAM Act will halt this destructive rulemaking 
process and provide an avenue for a collaborative approach to address 
deficiencies in the existing rule, if any, with the primacy States. It 
will save and protect the American taxpayer.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the STREAM Act, or H.R. 
1644, which is simply the latest attempt by the majority to prevent the 
implementation of new, commonsense rules to protect people and the 
environment from the destructive impacts of mountaintop removal coal 
mining.
  Mountaintop removal mining is a serious environmental and health 
threat. It occurs throughout Appalachia. Countries literally blast the 
tops off of mountains, scoop out the coal, and dump what used to be the 
mountaintop into the valleys below.
  In the process, landscapes are scarred, wildlife habitat is 
destroyed, mountain streams are buried, fish are killed, and the people 
living in the valleys suffer.
  The impact on the landscapes, as you can see from this picture here, 
is obvious. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at this photo of 
a mountaintop removal mine and understand the catastrophic impact to 
the environment. The impacts, however, to people are not as obvious to 
the naked eye, but they are just as severe.

  Several years ago there was an article titled ``Mountaintop Mining 
Consequences,'' in the journal Science. As we all know, Science is one 
of the most preeminent scientific journals in the world.
  In that paper, a dozen scientists from 10 institutions reported that 
mountaintop mining with valley filling ``revealed serious environmental 
impacts that mitigation practices cannot successfully address.''
  They went on to write that ``water emerges from the base of valley 
fills containing a variety of solutes toxic or damaging to biota,'' and 
that ``recovery of biodiversity in mining waste-impacted streams has 
not been documented.'' Again, that is a direct quote.
  But let's also talk about the impacts upon people. They write, 
``Adult hospitalizations for chronic pulmonary disorders and 
hypertension are elevated as a function of county-level coal 
production, as are rates of mortality; lung cancer; and chronic heart, 
lung, and kidney disease.''
  These are serious issues. They deserve a serious response. The 
current administration proposed such a response in July of last year 
with a new rule to govern mountaintop removal mining. Sadly, the 
majority is falling back on the same political playbook they have used 
time and time again: attack, obstruct, and delay.
  What do I mean by that? As it was pointed out, the development of the 
stream buffer zone, which is what we are talking about, took place 
under the Reagan administration in 1983, in which the President and the 
administration proposed a buffer around streams to protect the valleys 
around it.
  It was just the beginning. It gave the Office of Surface Mining 
oversight over the management, knowing that there are really some 
problems in there still to be worked out later in terms of how you 
regulate when this is done primarily by the States. This new buffer 
requirement that you have got to give these streams 100 feet on each 
side went on after 1983.
  On December 18, 2008, at the very last moment--at midnight--in 
President Bush's term, he introduced a new stream buffer rule in which 
he basically eviscerated the old and gave many more exemptions and, as 
I quoted, put in a new rule in 2008 that said that not only did it 
loosen protection, it allowed for the dumping of this residue from 
mining into the streams if avoiding disturbance of the stream is not 
potentially or reasonably possible. So what it said is that you can 
dump. If you can't figure out what else to do, you can dump.
  Immediately that was challenged in the courts. By 2014, the Federal 
courts overturned Bush's stream buffer rule. That is where we were by 
2014. It was overturned by the courts even though it was never fully 
implemented to change the Reagan rule.
  Then what happened right after that, in February 2014, the majority 
party then said, ``Let's put up the loosening of the buffer rule by 
having now put the Bush rule into legislation.''
  Well, that was voted down. That came out of this House, but never was 
voted upon and never got to the President's desk.
  Then what happened in the omnibus bill is they decided to change from 
direct opposition by weakening the rule to delaying the rule. They 
said, ``Well, let's put in a 1-year delay.'' This December that was one 
of the riders in the appropriations omnibus, but that was taken out at 
the last minute.
  Then we held a hearing in Natural Resources on this new bill that is 
before us, H.R. 1644, which occurred, as we all know, in May of 2015. 
We held a hearing on this stream buffer rule to delay the new rule that 
was going to be coming out in 3 years. But we had the delay in it. We 
held that hearing 2 months before the rule was even proposed.
  So we are delaying a rule that was first proposed months before we 
even actually saw what we were delaying in that rule. Then what happens 
is that we are now here to vote on a bill that delays the action for 3 
years.

                              {time}  1445

  It is really all about delay. It is not about the policy, because the 
policy, we would give at least a chance to work with this new stream 
protection rule if we were really dealing with the policy and seeing 
what needs to be improved upon where we are. We are going back to 
delaying it, the new implementation.
  Why did it take from 2008 until now to really come up with a new 
stream protection rule?
  Well, in large part that was due to the majority party's multiyear 
investigation into the rule. We had various subpoenas and tens of 
thousands of pages of documents, but in the end we found no political 
misconduct. All we did was to delay the implementation of a new rule 
from even coming out and costing the taxpayers money.
  There were political shenanigans going on in the rule, even though 
they found no real political shenanigans going on. However, we had 12 
hearings to deal with political shenanigans. The administration's 
proposed rule comes out in July. It is now January, over 7 months.
  How many hearings have we heard on the proposed rule? How many? I 
think the answer is zero. So we have never discussed the proposed rule. 
We are now voting to delay it, without ever discussing what it is, and 
it is just completely irresponsible to be now voting on something that 
stops a rule in its tracks that we have never had time to discuss.
  Now, we know that this bill isn't going to go anywhere. Even if the 
Senate was to pass it, the President has already issued a veto threat.
  So instead of this bad rerun, where the majority now is trying to 
evade and block this rule for the fourth time, maybe we should take a 
look at some of these environmental consequences and health impacts of 
mountaintop removal mining; look at the proposed rule and try to work 
with the administration to really come up with something that protects 
communities, instead of just attacking and, if that doesn't work, 
delaying.

[[Page H310]]

  I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Mooney) who has done an excellent job on the 
committee representing the folks of West Virginia.
  Mr. MOONEY from West Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Lamborn 
and Chairman Bishop for their leadership in getting this bill to the 
floor, and my friend, Bill Johnson, for his continued support on this 
issue.
  It is imperative that we pass our bill, H.R. 1644, the Supporting 
Transparent Regulatory and Environmental Actions in Mining Act, also 
known as the STREAM Act.
  My bill delays the implementation of the Obama administration's 
stream protection rule. When the rewrite of the rule was first 
proposed, the Office of Surface Mining described it as a ``minor'' 
regulation that would only impact one coal region. They could not be 
more wrong.
  This rule contains sweeping changes that modify 475 existing rules 
and is over 2,500 pages in length. Taken together, these changes will 
destroy up to 77,000 coal mining jobs nationwide, including up to 
52,000 in the Appalachian region.
  This would be devastating to States, like my home State of West 
Virginia, that have already been hit hard by President Obama's 
continuous war on coal. Between 5,000 and 10,000 jobs in western mining 
States will be lost, between 5,000 and 14,000 jobs will be lost in the 
interior States, and between 30,000 and 50,000 jobs in the Appalachian 
region will be lost due to this new stream protection rule.
  These new regulations would be catastrophic to the hardworking 
American families that depend on coal to keep their energy costs low. 
In my State, 90 percent of power is generated by coal-fired plants.
  One recent study showed that if the Obama administration successfully 
implements its radical environmental policies, the average American 
family will experience a $1,707-a-year increase in their home energy 
costs by the year 2025.
  The average American family earned $53,657 last year. The average 
family in West Virginia earned $41,059, which is $12,598 under the 
national average. This home energy cost increase will be detrimental 
for all Americans, but especially for West Virginians.
  When I campaigned to represent the people of the Second Congressional 
District of West Virginia, I promised that I would do all I could to 
fight for the coal industry and the hardworking men and women of our 
State. You have to understand that these jobs in West Virginia are 
good-paying jobs. These are jobs that families rely on to put food on 
the table and provide for the health and safety of their families.
  This STREAM Act is completely unnecessary. Going after these jobs is 
callous and wrong.
  West Virginia and our country need the STREAM Act to pass the House 
and the Senate and be signed into law. I urge my colleagues in the 
House to vote for this important bill today.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, not long ago, the Speaker of the House, 
Paul Ryan, said that he wanted to make the House an ``ideas factory.'' 
But with this bill today, it is clear that the only items being 
produced by the House are cookie-cutters, because we have done this 
before, again and again and again.
  House Republicans have made it their mission to kill the stream 
protection rule and protect the ability of coal companies to dump their 
mining waste wherever they want. They didn't see the rule until last 
July, but that hasn't kept them from a 5-year crusade to prioritize 
mining company profits over the health and welfare of nearby 
communities, wildlife, and the environment.
  First, they carried out a multiyear investigation into this rule, 
holding no less than 12 hearings and demanding tens of thousands of 
pages of documents, and ultimately coming up with nothing. Then they 
passed a bill last Congress to block the rule. Actually, they liked it 
so much, they passed the bill twice. Those bills, however, went 
nowhere.
  This Congress, they included a rider on the appropriations bill to 
block this rule and voted down my amendment to strip the rider out. The 
rider was eventually removed before the bill became law.
  This bill will suffer the same fate. It will not become law. 
President Obama has said he would rightly veto this bill, and there are 
not nearly enough votes to override that veto.
  So why are we wasting this Chamber's time on this meaningless cookie-
cutter legislation when we could be facing the real energy crises 
confronting the Nation, such as admitting that climate change is real 
and helping coal mining regions make a smooth transition off dirty 
fuel?
  But if we want to talk about the stream protection rule and the 
devastating impacts of mountaintop removal coal mining, we would have a 
hearing on it in the Natural Resources Committee, and I would welcome 
such a hearing.
  But, as my colleague and friend from California has pointed out, 
despite the 12 hearings the majority held on this rule before they ever 
read it, they have not held one since it was published. It is almost as 
if their minds were made up about the rule before it even came out. 
That doesn't sound much like an idea factory to me, Mr. Chairman.

  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), a member of the Natural Resources 
Committee.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for 
the time to speak regarding this important legislation, which I believe 
would help relieve the overregulation that we have seen in recent years 
in the coal industry.
  The coal mining industry has supported countless jobs in 
Pennsylvania's Fifth Congressional District for generations and 
continues to do so. In addition to jobs, coal also helps provide 
millions of Americans with affordable and reliable energy.
  However, overregulation, such as the stream buffer rule, has taken a 
big toll on our region. Layoffs have affected miners and companies 
across Pennsylvania, as these job creators continue to face 
unprecedented regulatory challenges.
  Reports have indicated that the rewrite of the stream buffer zone 
rule from the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 
would lead to the elimination of 7,000 mining jobs and cause economic 
harm in 22 States.
  With the rewritten regulations proposed, this bill introduces a bit 
of common sense, Mr. Chairman. It seeks to make sure that the 
regulation is based on proven science, requires a study on the strength 
of existing stream buffer rules, and, finally, seeks to end duplicative 
rulemaking. This is the least we can do to help limit the strain and 
provide some certainty for coal companies and, quite frankly, families 
who make their living in that industry where so many jobs are in the 
communities that we serve.
  As a cosponsor of this legislation, I strongly support it, and I urge 
my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on final passage.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  In recent weeks, we have learned about the water contamination 
problems in Flint, Michigan. By now, many of us have seen angry mothers 
and fathers on local television there, holding up water that looks like 
this, demanding a response from government officials.
  I think we all support the steps that the State and Federal 
Government are now taking to ensure that the water in Flint is safe for 
families to drink. But what if the legislation we are debating right 
now prevented government officials from taking that action? There would 
obviously be an outcry from Members on both sides of the aisle, and the 
bill would likely be defeated, as it should be.
  I am here on the floor today to say that this bill does, in fact, 
block government officials from protecting the water supply, not for 
the people of Flint, but for families in Appalachia and other coal 
mining communities.
  This water isn't from Flint, Michigan. It is from a well near a 
mountaintop removal site in eastern Kentucky. This orange water is what 
comes out of

[[Page H311]]

taps in much of Appalachia, where water is contaminated by toxic mine 
waste from the reckless practice of mountaintop removal mining.
  I have talked to teachers in eastern Kentucky who tell me that when 
the children in their classes draw their environment, they draw the 
water orange because that is what they see. How tragic is that?
  I have had the opportunity to fly over mountaintop removal sites and 
the areas around them, and the water looks a lot different than it 
should, a lot of colors that come out of Crayola boxes.
  Explosives used in the MTR process pollute the air, and the exposed 
rock and particulate matter allow heavy metals and toxins to leach into 
and poison the water. The situation is made even worse by coal 
companies who are allowed to dump mining waste directly into waterways.
  These actions, and the consequences of mountaintop removal, have 
created a public health crisis, with families living near or downstream 
of these mining sites experiencing higher rates of cancer, heart 
disease, kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, birth defects, and 
infant mortality.
  More than 2,000 miles of Appalachian streams have been poisoned since 
mountaintop removal began about 40 years ago. The Obama administration 
is trying to respond to that crisis with the commonsense, 
scientifically sound stream buffer rule. This proposed rule would take 
some important, although modest, steps to limit mountaintop removal 
practices and protect the water supply in mining communities.
  This bill would stop those efforts. It allows coal companies to 
continue to destroy mountains, pollute water supplies, and endanger the 
health of families living in the surrounding communities.
  Whether in Flint, Michigan, or eastern Kentucky, all families deserve 
water that is clean and safe and a government that cares and responds 
when their health is in jeopardy.
  I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous measure.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am going to recognize a Member in just a second. But 
in response to Mr. Yarmuth, I would just like to point out that the 
Office of Surface Mining has left States out of the discussions. States 
like Kentucky are not allowed to collaborate in this process, and that 
is unfortunate, because I think Kentucky and other States have 
something to contribute to this dialogue and this issue. So that is 
what the STREAM Act that we are going to vote on in a little bit would 
accomplish.

                              {time}  1500

  It brings the States back into the equation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Johnson). He has been a stalwart defender of the coal industry and the 
future that coal has in the energy and economy of our country.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I thank the chairman for those kind words.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an extremely important topic, and I couldn't 
agree more with what the gentleman has just said.
  This is largely an overreach by a Federal agency stepping all over 
the rights of the States to regulate their own use of their natural 
resources.
  So, for that reason, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1644, the 
STREAM Act, legislation that requires OSM to extend its new stream 
buffer rule while the National Academy of Sciences studies how current 
OSM rules affect the industry.
  Mr. Chairman, OSM's rule will cost jobs, increase electricity prices, 
and jeopardize grid reliability, along with usurping states' rights. 
Stop and think about it for a second. Shouldn't Federal agencies 
understand what that all means before enacting a rule like this?
  The Supreme Court certainly does. The Supreme Court has already told 
the EPA, for example, in one instance: You have got to consider the 
economic impacts of the rulemaking that you are doing.
  According to recent studies, OSM's proposed rule will have several 
very negative impacts. Let's talk about how it is going to cost jobs. 
As many as 80,000 people could lose their jobs. Now, OSM said it is 
only 7,000, but a recent study says that it could be upwards of 80,000 
people.
  OSM denies this job loss because they say these jobs will be replaced 
by jobs created to comply with the rule. Something tells me that those 
supposed new jobs are not going to be in places where mining is going 
on, in places like eastern and southeastern Ohio.
  You are talking about entire communities rolling up the sidewalks. It 
is going to raise electricity prices and affect the energy grid 
reliability.
  Roughly 64 percent of Ohio's energy comes from coal. Ohio's 
electricity prices are currently below the national average. In total, 
22 States rely on coal as their primary fuel source.
  This is going to usurp states' rights. State regulators who perform 
97 percent of regulatory activities are completely left out of this 
rulemaking process. In fact, all but two cooperating agency States have 
terminated their agreement because of OSM's actions.
  Look, this administration and this rule reflect a callous disregard 
for American coal, American coal miners, their families, the businesses 
that rely on the energy, and the industry as a whole.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to put politics aside. 
This is about an industry. It is about people's lives. I urge my 
colleagues to support the STREAM Act.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the Member from 
Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the STREAM Act. We 
should not willfully delay the stream protection rule. I have seen 
firsthand the impacts of coal mining, both positive and negative. I 
spent 9 years visiting the coal counties in Virginia: Buchanan, 
Dickenson, Lee, Wise, Russell, and others.
  When times are good, there are good incomes and nice cars. When times 
are hard, times like today, when we are not mining much coal mostly 
because of the abundance of natural gas, then things are pretty sad.
  When I was Lieutenant Governor of Virginia during the 1990s, 
mountaintop removal became the most prevalent coal mining technique in 
central Appalachia. Surely, coal can have a positive impact on local 
economies. But we also have to look at the impact it has on the 
environment and the health of these same communities.
  My good friend, Mr. Johnson of Ohio, has said that these are about 
the lives of people. Absolutely right. And we have shown callous 
disregard for the health of the people who live in these communities.
  The citizens of these same Virginia coal counties have by far the 
worst health outcomes of anybody in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The 
cost-benefit analysis, yes, but we are not doing anything to stop coal 
companies from mining coal or even mountaintop removal. We are just 
demanding that it be done responsibly.
  It takes tons of rocks and soil to expose underlying coal seams, but 
these are placed in valleys, headwater streams filled with all this 
displaced material. This can have significant impacts on water quality.
  West Virginia University--not one of those liberal universities in 
New England--a West Virginia study in 2012 found that mountaintop coal 
mining has adverse impacts on surface and groundwater quality. The 
Congressional Research Service, nonpartisan, said, since 1992, almost 
1,200 miles of streams were buried by surface coal mining practices.
  The cumulative effects of such surface coal mining operations 
include, number one, deforestation, which has been linked to harming 
the aquatic community; two, accelerated sediment and nutrient 
transport; and, three, increased algae production.
  Surface mining has also been responsible for most of the huge 
flooding in central Appalachia because, when you disturb natural 
streambeds, cover them with mine spoils, destroy the vegetation, all 
the topography is different.
  Virginia Tech has been working with the coal industry for over 30 
years to mitigate these effects, to reclaim the streams and lands that 
have been disturbed, and a lot of progress has been made. But we can 
and should do all that we can to protect our critical headwater and 
small streams before the impacts occur.
  Water monitoring found that Kelly Branch Mine in Wise County, 
Virginia,

[[Page H312]]

dumped toxic pollutant selenium into streams at levels far above the 
State water quality standards and without a permit to allow such 
pollution.
  As a result of a citizen suit, Southern Coal Corp. has since agreed 
to do the environmental cleanup, but we shouldn't need the lawsuits 
which too often lead to the bankruptcies of the coal companies.
  Lawsuits like this make it unsurprising that a group of researchers 
from West Virginia University--again--and Washington State University 
published a study in 2011 on the association between exposure to 
mountaintop removal mining and the increased rate of birth defects in 
central Appalachia.
  This again gets back to callous disregard for the people who live in 
central Appalachia. These people have been paying for the externalized 
costs of mountaintop removal for far too long, and local communities 
have been suffering life-threatening health problems and a damaged 
ecosystem.
  This is why, with Congressman Lowenthal and Congresswoman Esty, we 
offered an amendment to ensure that this bill paid attention to the 
negative health impacts. Unfortunately, the amendment was not made in 
order. But we can't continue to ignore this.
  Adjusted for every other factor, overwhelming scientific evidence 
links the practice of surface coal mining with elevated rates of 
serious health problems, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, and 
pulmonary disease, and overall mortality rates are about 20 percent 
higher in the coalfields than the national average.

  The ecological integrity of the streams is an indicator of the human 
cancer mortality rates. So the folks that live near these streams are 
much more likely to die and die young.
  This bill destroys the proposed protection for the people who live in 
southwest Virginia and coalfields across the country.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against the STREAM Act. 
The people of Appalachia deserve better.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, in response to a statement that was just 
made, let me point out that Johns Hopkins researchers--maybe one of the 
leading medical institutions in our country--found that ``no increased 
risk of birth defects was observed from births from mountaintop mining 
counties after adjustment for or stratification by hospital of birth.''
  So there are other issues going on that do affect the health in these 
areas. But you can't blame it on mountaintop mining, at least not 
according to Johns Hopkins.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. 
Lummis), who is a valuable member of the Committee on Natural 
Resources.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the chairman for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, if you have been listening to this debate thus far, you 
would believe that we are only talking about mountaintop mining.
  Well, I want to assure you the bill that I support that is on the 
floor today is also trying to protect non-mountaintop mining because 
the rules that have been proposed by the Obama administration apply to 
all coal miners.
  They apply to non-mountaintop mining as well, including mining in my 
State of Wyoming and the mining that can occur in the State of Montana, 
to my north, that has enormous undeveloped coal reserves.
  My State of Wyoming has been the number one coal-producing State in 
this Nation since 1986, for 30 years. The reclamation of those mines is 
state of the art.
  If you go to the top of the tipples at those mines and look around, 
you cannot tell, if you are an untrained eye, whether the land has been 
mined and reclaimed or undisturbed and un-mined.
  It is because the quality of reclamation that is required by the 
State of Wyoming is so state of the art that the water is clean, the 
land is reclaimed, the wildlife returns. In fact, the wildlife prefers 
to graze on the land that has been reclaimed, as opposed to the land 
that has not been mined.
  States have proven that they can regulate and return properties to a 
condition that Americans can be proud of and know that we will be safe. 
Yet, the States have been shut out of this regulatory process.
  Legislation which we are discussing today, the STREAM Act, would 
allow and restore States their rightful place in this discussion.
  Where the expertise lies is in the States. They are the ones that 
should be included in the crafting of any Federal legislation and, in 
my view, should be left to the States where the expertise lies and 
where the differences between mining on non-mountain property and a 
mountain property can be properly addressed.
  Applying this stream buffer rule, which the administration proposes, 
to non-mountaintop mines is absurd. I would further assert that the 
expertise to deal with mountaintop mining lies in the States where that 
mining is currently occurring.
  I thank the chairman for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. LUMMIS. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I have seen some of the operations in the great State of 
Wyoming. Isn't it true that the reclaimed and restored land does not 
have the invasive species that we have unfortunately seen in this 
country in recent decades?
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Curbelo of Florida). The time of the 
gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
  So without the invasive species in the restored land, you could 
almost say, couldn't you, that the land is better than it was before?
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Reclaiming my time, the answer is yes, for several 
reasons. It is because the mix of grasses that are used to reseed the 
land that has been mined and reclaimed is a mix of grasses that 
provides for the health that allows for grasses that don't naturally 
clump, grasses that spread out, to be on the reclaimed land.
  So when it rains, you don't have the kind of running off of the 
topsoil that would occur if the grasses are the type of grasses that 
tend to clump, instead of cover the ground uniformly.
  So that is one of the reasons why the reclaimed land actually is a 
better trap for water. As we know, when water seeps into the ground, 
the ground naturally filters the water. So it allows for less runoff of 
topsoil and allows for the rain to seep into the ground.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has again expired.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I yield the gentlewoman from Wyoming an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. The soil itself is a natural filter for this water. 
These are the kind of things that States' experts know, and their 
expertise should be inserted into any rulemaking process.
  That is part of the reason that I support the STREAM Act. I support 
my colleagues from the East and appreciate their attention to this 
important piece of legislation.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I would like to talk in response to some of 
the points raised by my esteemed colleagues from the other side about 
the doom and gloom of job loss numbers that they presented. I believe 
70,000 jobs will be lost with the proposed rule or we just heard also 
possibly 80,000 direct mining jobs might be lost.
  These are, indeed, frightening numbers. Unfortunately, they are not 
credible and not based upon any kind of evidence. Those estimates which 
we are hearing come from a study that was paid for by the National 
Mining Association, and those numbers are the same, that 70- or 80,000, 
as the total number of coal mining jobs currently in the United States, 
according to the Energy Information Administration.

                              {time}  1515

  In fact, the National Mining Association study that we have heard 
about projects up to 52,000 coal mining job losses in Appalachia as a 
result of the administration's proposed rule. There are less than 
50,000 coal miners in that entire region today, so apparently this rule 
creates jobs before it costs jobs.
  We shouldn't be surprised that the industry would come up with such 
inflated numbers. After all, they don't need to be accurate. They just 
need to scare people, much in the same way as the American public was 
told that the Affordable Care Act is going to destroy an untold number 
of jobs, except that

[[Page H313]]

we have now added 14 million private sector jobs since that act was 
signed into law.
  Today we should be extremely skeptical of industry scare tactics. 
Actually, the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the stream protection rule 
found, in fact, not 70,000, not 80,000, but there would be a net loss 
of only 10 jobs. This is a small price to pay for cleaner water and 
healthier communities.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In response to my good friend and colleague Representative Lowenthal, 
I would like to say that just in today's Wall Street Journal, Arch Coal 
revealed that it has declared bankruptcy. They are one of the top coal 
producers in this country. I would say that the loss of jobs and this 
administration's war on coal is actually a staggering and frightening 
phenomenon, and that is why we need the STREAM Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Jenkins).
  Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia. I thank the chairman.
  I rise today in support of the pending legislation, H.R. 1644, the 
STREAM Act.
  Appalachia is suffering. Years of burdensome regulations from this 
administration have had a devastating impact on coal. West Virginia 
miners, families, and businesses are paying the price.
  Since 2012, according to The Wall Street Journal, 27 coal mining 
companies in Appalachia have filed for bankruptcy. In just the past 4 
years, we have seen 7,000 coal miners lose their jobs in West Virginia. 
Why? Because each and every day, President Obama's EPA and the Office 
of Surface Mining are regulating coal mines out of business and putting 
miners on the unemployment line.
  Coal miners are the heart and soul of communities in West Virginia, 
and the significant layoffs we are experiencing are simply 
heartbreaking. The President, the EPA, and the OSM continue to ignore 
the economic pain they are inflicting.
  The stream buffer zone rule, which the STREAM Act would halt, is yet 
another example of unnecessary regulation, one that will increase 
energy costs for American families and businesses.
  The OSM's new stream buffer zone rule will lead to thousands more job 
losses in West Virginia and across the Nation. An independent study 
found it would eliminate at least 40,000 direct coal mining jobs on top 
of the 42,000 indirect jobs and other jobs that have been lost just 
since 2011. Even OSM's own analysis estimates that this rule would 
result in the loss of thousands of jobs. That does not include the 
thousands of jobs that depend on coal indirectly: our Nation's small 
businesses, equipment manufacturers, transportation, and others.
  Mr. Chairman, this is unacceptable. It is also the reason why I 
helped secure a provision in the omnibus that mandates that OSM work 
with the States. I support the STREAM Act, and I encourage its passage.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 8\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Colorado has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I would like to respond to my colleague's comments about 
the lack of any health impacts of mountaintop mining, quoting a study 
from Johns Hopkins University about the lack of any identifiable birth 
defects that are correlated with coal mining or mountaintop mining.
  I would like to again read from the Science article of January 8, 
2010, called ``Mountaintop Mining Consequences,'' a collaborative 
effort of scientists from the University of Maryland; from Duke 
University; from the University of Minnesota; from West Virginia 
University; from Wake Forest University; from Miami University, Oxford, 
Ohio; from the University of California at Berkeley; from the 
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; and from the same Johns 
Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. They found their results on 
the potential for human health impacts were this: adult 
hospitalizations for chronic pulmonary disorders and hypertension are 
elevated as a function of county level coal production, as are rates of 
mortality, lung cancer, and chronic heart, lung, and kidney diseases. 
That is what the scientists have found that are the result of a 
potential for human health impacts.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 
1644. I think it is really important that sometimes we actually talk to 
people who work in coal country, people who live in coal country, 
people who have generationally been part of coal mining.
  Too often I come to this floor in America's House and I hear all 
these different things that are going on. If you want to talk about 
health, let's talk about the health of our community. Let's talk about 
the tens of thousands of jobs that will be lost because of more 
regulations.
  We know that commodity prices will fluctuate. The one thing we know 
for sure is that regulation will not. It will forever put a price tag 
on this product that will make it impossible for it to compete on the 
open market. Yet we will sit here and we will talk about things that 
really aren't true, and we will say it in a manner that we say this is 
so bad, this product is so horrible, do you realize what it is doing? 
And my answer is, yes, I do. It employees tens of thousands of 
Americans.
  These are not, by the way, Republican jobs. These are Democrat jobs 
for the most part. These are American jobs. These are red, white, and 
blue jobs. This is about a product that has been the workforce of 
American energy. This makes it possible for America to compete anywhere 
in the world because of low energy costs.
  I would just ask my friends, while it may become a political issue 
and it may seem like it is a great talking point, you need to walk in 
those communities. You need to go into those schools. You need to go 
into those towns. You need to go into those homes. You need to go into 
those mines. You need to look into the faces and the eyes of the people 
who bring this tremendous product out of the ground and tell them what 
they have been doing generationally is horrible for the country. You 
need to tell them that the way they have been making a living, the way 
they have been putting a roof over the heads of their children, the way 
they have been putting food on the table for their kids, the way they 
have been putting clothes on their backs, and the way they have been 
preparing for their future is bad; you have acted terribly in doing 
this, and we need ought to spank you.

  Really minor adjustments--475 modifications. That is not minor; that 
is major. That makes the cost of this product go off the charts. It 
doesn't matter that it changes anything. This is one promise the 
President kept.
  When he was a candidate running for this office, he said: If you want 
to continue to make power, make electricity, by using coal-fired power 
plants, you can do that, but I will bankrupt you.
  He has kept that promise. Promise made, promise kept. He has turned 
his back on over a quarter of a million people who depend on coal for 
their livelihood. He has turned his back on an America that is looking 
to take advantage of gifts that were given to us by God--natural 
resources.
  We have not turned our back on health; we have not turned our back on 
the future of our children; but what we also will not do is we will not 
turn our back on onerous regulations that do nothing to make it better 
for our people.
  All we are asking for is to take a really good look at this. The 
stream protection rule, that doesn't make sense. The Clean Power Plan 
didn't make sense. It makes sense to some because it will put them out 
of business to say: All right. Fine. We need to do this to really hurt 
these folks.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. It really comes down to this. We are at a 
crossroads in this country. We have to present really bold visions of 
where we

[[Page H314]]

think the country should be going. We need to talk about policies that 
are going to make America stronger. We need to talk about policies that 
put Americans back to work. We need to talk about policies that the 
American people can look at and say: Do you know what? There is a clear 
difference. There is a new day coming for America. There is a new way 
to run the government. There is a new way to look at regulations and 
understand that these aren't helping; they are hurting.
  I would just ask all of my colleagues very strongly to support H.R. 
1644. Do the right thing for America. Forget about whether to wear a 
red shirt or a blue shirt. Think about the red, white, and blue that we 
stand for every day.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would just like to respond to some of the attacks from the other 
side that are supporting the STREAM Act that the administration's 
stream protection rule is really an attempt to destroy jobs, it is 
really part of, as one of my colleagues has said, the war on coal. But 
nothing could be further from the truth. What we are talking about are 
commonsense protections for communities.
  Contrary to the Republican chorus that there is a war on coal, let me 
read to you, Members, that the Energy Information Administration 
estimates that U.S. coal production for 2014 was up 14 million short 
tons from 2013, and that this production growth is going to continue 
through 2030. While coal exports are predicted to drop in the short 
term, they are going to reach historic high grounds around 2030.
  We are not talking about destroying these communities. We are talking 
about allowing these communities to thrive, to be healthy, to protect 
the valleys, to protect the streams, to protect the ecology, to protect 
the public health, and to allow us to have mountaintop mining, but safe 
and healthy mountaintop mining. That is what we are talking about.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, Mr. 
Lamborn.
  This is a very important issue. I would like to thank my colleague, 
Mr. Mooney, for sponsoring this piece of legislation that not only 
impacts his home State of West Virginia and the other coal-producing 
States in the Midwest, but also my home State of Illinois.
  Coal production in my home State is a significant driver in our 
State's economy, particularly the part of the State that I represent. I 
would not be here today, Mr. Chairman, without what coal has meant to 
my hometown of Taylorville in my home county of Christian County.
  I saw in the mid-nineties what a signature on a piece of paper right 
here in Washington, D.C., can do to destroy a local economy. In 
Illinois alone, today, coal jobs employ nearly 5,000 workers. Just a 
few short years ago, that was many more. The industry contributes $2 
billion to our State's economy.
  Unfortunately, this proposed stream protection rule is another 
example of this Obama administration waging war on coal. By their own 
estimates, OSM claims this rule would kill 7,000 coal jobs. That is 
2,000 more than exist in the State of Illinois today. Through 
independent analysis, it shows job losses may be even more in the tens 
of thousands.
  This rule is not only going to hurt coal miners, but also those in my 
district and others that work at coal-fired power plants. It is going 
to hurt consumers. It is going to hurt the poorest of the poor in this 
country, who are going to have to pay higher rates when base load 
generation facilities that burn coal go offline.

                              {time}  1530

  These coal-fired power plants, Mr. Chairman, provide some of the best 
paying jobs in my district. Where are they going to go to find work 
when this administration's war on coal takes their jobs away?
  I have advocated for important language in working with my colleagues 
Mr. Mooney, Mr. Lamborn, Bill Johnson from Ohio, Jim Renacci, and 
others. We want to make sure that we have the States sign off on this 
OSM stream protection rule before the Federal Government can come in 
and take those coal mining jobs away.
  Mr. Chairman, it is clear that this administration's war on coal 
isn't going to stop today. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this 
legislation.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close as soon as the 
opposing side has closed.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  In closing, I would like to read a few lines from a letter that was 
sent from a coalition of 35 national and local groups which are 
strongly opposed to this bill.
  They write:
  ``The proposed stream protection rule is essential to protect the 
waters in mining regions and to ensure that communities will have 
viable economies after the resource is extracted and mining ceases.''
  They go on to point out that mountaintop removal mining is 
``responsible for the destruction of over 500 mountains and 
approximately 2,000 miles of stream channels across central Appalachia. 
This form of coal mining devastates both the thriving natural 
ecosystems of the Appalachian Mountains as well as entire communities 
of residents who have lived on their homesteads for generations.''
  They conclude:
  ``Please oppose the STREAM Act, and allow the proposed stream 
protection rule to proceed without congressional interference so that 
communities living in the shadows of mining sites can have safe water 
resources.''
  I also have a letter of opposition from the United Auto Workers and 
eight other organizations, which state:
  ``This bill would put costly and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles 
into the already overburdened regulatory process with the sole intent 
of ensuring that coal companies can continue to destroy streams and 
coal wastes. We urge you to vote against this legislation both to 
protect mining communities and to reject attempts to delay and 
frustrate improved regulatory protections.''
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the opposition to H.R. 1644.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In my closing remarks, I would like to highlight the findings of an 
economic impact analysis of the draft stream buffer zone rule, released 
in 2015, issued against the Obama administration regulation. The study 
was done by the ENVIRON International Corporation.
  ENVIRON found that 64 percent of the Nation's coal reserves would be 
sterilized, or frozen, resulting in an annual loss in value that ranges 
between $14 billion to $29 billion.
  The proposed rule hits longwall mining particularly hard, causing a 
decrease of 47 to 85 percent in recoverable longwall coal reserves. 
Longwall mining is considered the safest, most efficient, and most 
profitable type of underground mining.
  Sterilizing so much of the Nation's coal reserves will have a 
significant impact on employment, ranging from a loss of 40,000 to 
about 77,000 direct jobs and 112,000 to 280,000 indirect jobs from 
those businesses and industries that provide goods and services to the 
mining sector.
  These jobs are high-paying, family-wage jobs, with excellent 
benefits, including health care. The economic impact to the coal-
producing States and counties will be staggering.
  The STREAM Act instills sanity into the Office of Surface Mining's 
rulemaking process by requiring transparency in the scientific products 
used by OSM in any rulemaking that they have. It narrowly focuses the 
stream buffer zone rule to actual stream buffer zones and not 474 other 
regulations.
  It also allows States with the expertise in regulating the Nation's 
coal mines to participate in the assessment of the effectiveness of the 
existing rule. Finally, it reins in OSM's overreach into areas outside 
of its statutory jurisdiction.
  Mr. Chairman, there are two great ironies in this whole war on coal 
by the administration. Actually, it is a war on the American people. It 
is a war on working families because it not only costs high-paying 
jobs, but it drives up

[[Page H315]]

the cost of energy. When you drive up the cost of energy, that takes 
money out of people's pockets, and they have less money left over to 
take care of their families and to provide for their futures.
  If the war on coal by this administration were successful, not only 
would you have those negative impacts, but many of the 
environmentalists would just create another war.
  There is already one major group that says, ``Oh, we don't even like 
natural gas,'' which is being touted as the replacement for coal. They 
don't even like that.
  There will be some other reason to which they will find objection 
with regard to whatever takes coal's place, would that day ever come.
  When you run the numbers, the environmental impact of getting rid of 
coal completely for electrical generation would have a negligible 
impact on any future impact on the global climate.
  Let's pass the STREAM Act as it protects jobs, it protects rural 
communities, and it protects the American taxpayer. I ask that my 
colleagues support this important piece of legislation and vote for its 
final passage.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the STREAM Act, 
which is a dangerous and unnecessary bill that would delay the 
finalization of the Department of Interior's Stream Protection Rule. 
This critical rule will improve methods for monitoring and preventing 
damage to surface and groundwater from mountaintop removal coal mining.
  Surface mining in the steep slopes of Appalachia has disrupted the 
biological integrity of an area about the size of Delaware, buried 
approximately 2,000 miles of streams with mining waste, and 
contaminated downstream areas with toxic elements. Because of this 
dangerous practice, people have been drinking the byproducts of coal 
waste from mountaintop removal for more than two decades. Rather than 
clean and clear water running out of their faucets, the people of 
Appalachia are left with orange or black liquid instead.
  The health problems caused by exposure to these chemicals and heavy 
metals include cancers, organ failure, and learning disabilities. Not 
only that, but there are multiple cases of children suffering from 
asthma, headaches, nausea, and other symptoms likely due to toxic 
contamination from coal dust. This is environmental injustice.
  The people of Appalachia should have the right to send their children 
to a school not threatened by billions of gallons of coal slurry; the 
right to preserve the streams and valleys that have been part of their 
way of life; and the right to protect their own land, no matter how 
much coal might be underneath.
  I have consistently introduced legislation, the Clean Water 
Protection Act, which would put a stop to mountaintop removal mining, 
and I plan to reintroduce the bill in the beginning of this year. I 
urge my colleagues to oppose the legislation before us today that will 
only perpetuate the dangerous practice of mountaintop removal mining.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
of amendment under the 5-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources, printed 
in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
shall be considered as read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 1644

       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 ``Supporting Transparent 
     Regulatory and Environmental Actions in Mining Act'' or the 
     ``STREAM Act''.

     SEC. 2. PUBLICATION OF SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS FOR RULES AND 
                   RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS, 
                   ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS, AND ECONOMIC 
                   ASSESSMENTS.

       (a) Requirement.--Title V of the Surface Mining Control and 
     Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 530. PUBLICATION OF SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS FOR RULES AND 
                   RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES, AND ECONOMIC 
                   ASSESSMENTS.

       ``(a) Requirement.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall make publicly 
     available 90 days before the publication of any draft, 
     proposed, supplemental, final, or emergency rule under this 
     Act, or any related environmental analysis, economic 
     assessment, policy, or guidance, each scientific product the 
     Secretary relied on in developing the rule, environmental 
     analysis, economic assessment, policy, or guidance.
       ``(2) Federally funded scientific products.--For those 
     scientific products receiving Federal funds in part, or in 
     full, the Secretary shall also make publicly available the 
     raw data used for the federally funded scientific product.
       ``(b) Compliance.--
       ``(1) In general.--Failure to make publicly available any 
     scientific product 90 days before the publication of--
       ``(A) any draft, proposed, or supplemental rule, 
     environmental analysis, economic assessment, policy or 
     guidance shall extend by one day the comment period for each 
     day such scientific product is not made available; or
       ``(B) any final or emergency rule shall delay the effective 
     date of the final or emergency rule by 60 days plus each day 
     the scientific product is withheld.
       ``(2) Delay longer than 6 months.--If the Secretary fails 
     to make publicly available any scientific product for longer 
     than 6 months, the Secretary shall withdraw the rule, 
     environmental analysis, economic assessment, policy, or 
     guidance.
       ``(3) Exception.--This subsection shall not apply if a 
     delay in the publication of a rule will pose an imminent and 
     severe threat to human life.
       ``(c) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Publicly available.--The term `publicly available' 
     means published on the Internet via a publicly accessible 
     website under the Secretary's control.
       ``(2) Environmental analysis.--The term `environmental 
     analysis' means environmental impact statements and 
     environmental assessments prepared pursuant to the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
       ``(3) Scientific product.--The term `scientific product' 
     means any product that--
       ``(A) employs the scientific method for inventorying, 
     monitoring, experimenting, studying, researching, or modeling 
     purposes; and
       ``(B) is relied upon by the Secretary in the development of 
     any rule, environmental analysis, economic assessment, 
     policy, or guidance.
       ``(4) Raw data.--The term `raw data'--
       ``(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), means any 
     computational process, or quantitative or qualitative data, 
     that is relied on in a scientific product to support a 
     finding or observation; and
       ``(B) does not include such data or processes--
       ``(i) that are protected by copyright;
       ``(ii) that contain personally identifiable information, 
     sensitive intellectual property, trade secrets, or business-
     sensitive information; or
       ``(iii) to the extent that such data and processes are 
     covered by the provisions of part C of title XI of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d et seq.), regulations 
     promulgated pursuant to section 264(c) of the Health 
     Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (42 
     U.S.C. 1320d-2 note), and the provisions of subtitle D of 
     title XIII of the Health Information Technology for Economic 
     and Clinical Health Act (42 U.S.C. 17921 et seq.).''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in the first 
     section of such Act is amended by adding at the end of the 
     items relating to such title the following:

``Sec. 530. Publication of scientific products for rules and related 
              environmental analyses, and economic assessments.''.

     SEC. 3. STUDY OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CERTAIN RULE.

       (a) Requirement.--Title VII of the Surface Mining Control 
     and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1291 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 722. STUDY OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CERTAIN RULE.

       ``(a) Study.--No later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of the STREAM Act, the Secretary of the Interior, 
     in consultation with the Interstate Mining Compact Commission 
     and its State members, shall enter into an arrangement with 
     the National Academy of Sciences, for execution by the Board 
     on Earth Sciences and Resources, to conduct a comprehensive 
     study on the regulatory effectiveness of the `Surface Coal 
     Mining and Reclamation Operations Permanent Regulatory 
     Program; Stream Buffer Zones and Fish, Wildlife, and Related 
     Environmental Values' Final Rule published June 30, 1983 (48 
     Fed. Reg. 30312), and amended September 30, 1983 (48 Fed. 
     Reg. 44777), in protecting perennial and intermittent streams 
     through the use of stream buffer zones. If the study 
     determines the existence of regulatory inefficiencies, then 
     the study shall include suggestions and recommendations for 
     increasing the effectiveness of the rule.
       ``(b) Results of the Study.--Not later than 2 years after 
     execution of the arrangements under subsection (a), the Board 
     on Earth Sciences and Resources shall submit to the Committee 
     on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate, 
     appropriate Federal agencies, and the Governor of each of the 
     States represented on the Interstate Mining Compact 
     Commission the results of the study conducted under 
     subsection (a).
       ``(c) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Secretary of the Interior $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2016 
     and $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2017 for the purposes of this 
     section.
       ``(d) Prohibition on New Regulations.--The Secretary shall 
     not issue any final or other regulations pertaining to the 
     proposed rule entitled `Stream Protection Rule' (80 Fed. Reg. 
     44436) or relating to stream buffer zones, until one year 
     after the Secretary has submitted the results of

[[Page H316]]

     the study in accordance with subsection (b). If the Secretary 
     proposes any such regulations after such submission, the 
     Secretary shall take into consideration the findings of the 
     study.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in the first 
     section of such Act is amended by adding at the end of the 
     items relating to such title the following:

``Sec. 720. Subsidence.
``Sec. 721. Research.
``Sec. 722. Study of the effectiveness of certain rule.''.

     SEC. 4. COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER FEDERAL LAWS.

       Section 702 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation 
     Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1291) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsection 
     (d) and (e), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Compliance With Other Federal Laws.--Nothing in this 
     Act authorizes the Secretary to take any action by rule, 
     regulation, notice, policy, guidance, or order that 
     duplicates, implements, interprets, enforces, or determines 
     any action taken under an Act referred to in subsection (a) 
     or any regulation or rule promulgated thereunder.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in House 
Report 114-395. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
to a demand for division of the question.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Lamborn

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in House Report 114-395.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 5, line 17, strike ``and''.
       Page 5, line 20, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 5, after line 20, insert the following:
       ``(C) is not protected under copyright laws.''.
       Page 9, line 3, strike ``1291'' and insert ``1292''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 583, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I believe that this amendment is really 
technical in nature. It does two things.
  First, we ensure that the legislation does not infringe on copyright 
laws.
  According to the largest private publishers of scientific research, 
government-funded studies will be made publicly available ``where the 
government has funded the publication of a private sector, peer-
reviewed article or where the author of the article is a government 
employee . . . we do not dispute that any such article couldn't be made 
publicly available.''
  We are addressing that concern that was raised during the markup of 
this bill.
  Second, we identified a technical error in a U.S. Code citation and 
corrected it.
  I ask for a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the 
time in opposition to the amendment even though I am not opposed to it.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes a small change to 
section 2 to make the bill somewhat more palatable to scientific 
publishers.
  So I will not oppose it, but it does nothing to actually improve the 
bill itself nor the requirement surrounding the advance publication of 
scientific data.
  Today we received a letter from the Union of Concerned Scientists 
that says they are strongly opposed to H.R. 1644.
  The scientists write: ``This proposal is just another attempt of what 
is becoming an old and tired song, an attempt to cloak an effort to 
block commonsense regulations in the guise of transparency.''
  They continue: ``The amended version improves the original bill by 
exempting certain types of data from public disclosure. However, the 
language is so vague it will make it very difficult for scientists 
doing federally funded research to know whether or not the data they 
have spent years collecting may be prematurely disclosed before they 
can publish their own studies. At the very least, this discourages 
scientists from doing any crucial research that may be required to be 
publicly disclosed.''
  They conclude: ``If passed, H.R. 1644 would inhibit the Department of 
the Interior's ability to carry out its science- and evidence-based 
responsibility to protect human health and the environment. We strongly 
recommend a `no' vote on H.R. 1644.''
  I agree with the scientists on this one.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Member for not opposing this 
amendment, and I ask that we vote ``yes'' on it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Kildee

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 114-395.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 5, line 3, before the period, insert ``or improve 
     drinking water quality''.
       Page 8, line 16, before the period, insert ``, unless such 
     a rule will improve drinking water quality''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 583, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, first of all, the underlying bill is an 
attempt to delay the implementation of the stream protection rule, an 
important rule that protects our Nation's rivers, our streams, and the 
nearby communities from the effects of mountaintop removal coal mining.
  My amendment would not allow any rule that improves drinking water 
quality to be delayed. Ensuring that we protect our streams and 
rivers--often important sources of drinking water--is of vital 
importance.
  Listen, I know firsthand something about what happens when 
regulations are not strong enough to protect drinking water.
  Today, in my hometown of Flint, safeguards for better drinking water 
could have prevented the entire city and upwards of 10,000 children 
under the age of 6 from being exposed to dangerous levels of lead.
  Lead is a deadly neurotoxin that is especially harmful to young 
children. It can permanently lower the IQ, increase disruptive 
behavior, and stunt neurological development.
  These children in my hometown, many of whom already have great 
hurdles to overcome because of the misfortune of the ZIP code into 
which they were born--communities of very high poverty--now must endure 
another blow to their futures due to the decisions that were outside of 
their control and the lack of effective protection of their drinking 
water.
  No other community should ever face that same danger, the danger of 
having their children literally poisoned by unsafe, contaminated 
drinking water. My amendment will ensure important protections for 
other communities.
  Look, I have seen my community live through this. They continue to 
live through it. We should be doing everything we can not to weaken 
protections for drinking water, but to strengthen them to prevent this 
from ever happening anywhere else.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.

[[Page H317]]

  

  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, my heart goes out to my friend and colleague 
from Flint, Michigan. I share in the difficulties that they are 
suffering now in that city because of the water supply. I know that his 
intention is to do everything he can--and I appreciate his work--to 
help the people of his district, especially when it comes to water 
supply. I appreciate that.
  I do have to point out that the issue that was raised there is not a 
mining issue. It is from other sources. It is pollution from pulp and 
paper mills, and it is not a mining issue.
  Getting back to this amendment, I do have to point out that already 
under the law, permitted mines must already adhere to safe drinking 
water standards and are very heavily regulated by the EPA. The problem 
with the OSM, Office of Surface Mining, is that they are taking over--
it is bureaucratic mission creep--they are taking over some of the EPA 
functions. Among other good things that the STREAM Act does is it 
prevents OSM from going down that road, and it leaves clean water 
issues under the jurisdiction of the EPA.
  So we just need to make sure that the government agencies stick to 
what they know best. The STREAM Act does that. Water quality is really 
not an issue when it comes to nonmine issues.
  I would ask for opposition to this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, let me first thank the gentleman for his 
kind words and his concern over my hometown. It is an extraordinarily 
difficult situation.
  Sadly, it is actually the creation of a series of decisions by our 
State government to switch from the freshest, cleanest water on the 
planet, the Great Lakes, to the Flint River in order to save a few 
dollars, and then the failure of the Michigan Department of 
Environmental Quality to enforce even the minor protections that it has 
available to it.
  The reason I am offering this amendment and the reason that I offer 
it on this particular piece of legislation is that, in my hometown, it 
was led and it was a bad set of decisions made by an emergency 
financial manager. In another community, it may be another source.
  My view--and the reason I offer this amendment--is that we ought to 
do everything within our power in this Congress to make sure that we 
protect our environment and particularly protect drinking water. I 
believe my amendment would do that. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Cartwright

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in House Report 114-395.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 5. ABANDONED MINE LAND ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION.

       Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 
     of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1231, et seq.) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:

     ``SEC. 416. ABANDONED MINE LAND ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION.

       ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, amounts 
     that would otherwise be provided under title IV to States 
     certified under section 411(a) shall, subject to 
     appropriations, be distributed to the States and Indian 
     tribes for the purpose of promoting the economic 
     revitalization, diversification, and development in 
     economically distressed communities adversely affected by 
     discharge from abandoned mine lands.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 583, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, my amendment seeks to return abandoned 
mine lands funding to its originally intended focus, which is to 
support the communities that are struggling due to their legacy of 
mining.
  This funding, roughly $600 million over 10 years, will assist 
struggling coal communities in diversifying their economies, increasing 
human capital development, and stimulating economic growth. The funding 
for this investment in mining communities comes from States that have 
been certified by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 
Enforcement as having already reclaimed their abandoned mines.
  These States are, therefore, receiving money from a program dedicated 
to helping communities deal with the impact of mining, but the Federal 
Government has certified that they have already dealt with those 
impacts. In fact, one State took $10 million of this funding to 
renovate a basketball arena.
  Meanwhile, States in Appalachia are facing the combined calamity of a 
collapsing coal industry and the environmental legacy of over a century 
of mining.
  In Scranton, Pennsylvania, for example, that legacy includes 65 
million gallons of acid mine runoff every day. Every day, there are 65 
million gallons of acid mine runoff flowing into the river. Across 
northeastern Pennsylvania, there are thousands of miles of streams 
impacted by mine drainage, many of which are totally devoid of aquatic 
life.
  On top of these environmental impacts, the decreased demand for 
Appalachian coal has devastated communities and workers who have built 
their lives and built their families around the coal industry. This 
amendment is for them and to help rejuvenate these small communities 
across Appalachia and in other regions.
  Nearly all the biggest coal companies in the United States are 
teetering on the brink of collapse. Several have been removed from the 
New York Stock Exchange due to their valuations falling too low. Just 
yesterday, Arch Coal, one of the biggest coal companies in the country, 
filed for bankruptcy.
  For the families that depend on these jobs, these benefits, and these 
pensions, we have to act. We cannot be dispassionate bystanders as the 
rug is pulled out from under these communities. They deserve our 
support.
  Now, this amendment recognizes the fact that coal helped to build 
this country, coal spurred the industrial revolution and powered us 
through two world wars. The communities of Appalachia that proudly dug 
the coal that powered America through the 20th century have earned the 
support they need to diversify their local economies, and that is what 
this amendment works toward.
  The sponsors of the underlying bill, the STREAM Act, purport to be 
concerned about jobs in the Appalachian regions. If that is their 
concern, then they should also support my amendment, which will create 
jobs in the communities that need them most and continue to have to 
spend money on reclaiming abandoned mines.
  For that reason, I urge my colleagues--and especially those of you 
who represent mining areas, as I do--to vote ``yes'' on this amendment 
to revitalize historic mining communities.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ZINKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Cartwright amendment to the STREAM Act.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Montana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ZINKE. Mr. Chair, we in the coal-producing States in the West do 
pay the majority of AML fees every year, a reminder that Montana and 
Wyoming have more coal than anyone else in the world. Yet, this 
language would rip away funding of the AML from our coal-certified 
States like Montana, but also the tribes. The great Crow Nation depends 
on these funds.
  How can you justify ripping and robbing certified States that pay the 
majority of the AML funds and tribes away? What does it do? It rips 
away money that is used for restoration and protects small communities.
  Montana has been in the business of mining for over 100 years. We 
have over

[[Page H318]]

6,700 known abandoned mines and mill sites across our State, and we 
have worked hard to reclaim many of these areas. Yet, removing the 
funds from those small communities poses a threat.
  Governor Bullock, a Democrat, has also expressed his deep concerns 
about ending these payments and asked all of the Montana delegation, 
which there are three of us, to help safeguard this valuable program 
for the good of all Montanans and the great Crow Nation.
  This amendment is disguised as a solution. It doesn't offer a 
solution. The underlying idea of it is to kill the coal industry. We 
have seen time and time again excessive overreach, not based on 
scientific data, but based on an agenda; and the agenda is to kill 
coal.
  In Montana, we love coal. In Wyoming, our neighbor to the south, we 
understand that coal drives our economy. It helps fund our schools, our 
bridges, our roads, and our community.
  I stand by Montana and I stand by the great Crow Nation and urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ZINKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, this is absolutely illustrative of the old 
adage: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it 
stops moving, subsidize it.
  So here is the deal: This country started mining a lot of coal, so 
the Federal Government taxed it in 1977 through SMCRA, the Surface 
Mining Control and Reclamation Act. They put a big tax on coal by the 
ton, not the Btus, by the ton.
  Then the coal companies and the coal industry kept moving, and now 
they want to regulate it. In fact, this administration wants to 
regulate it out of existence and has said so. Rules are being proposed 
to regulate the coal industry out of existence. So that is the keep-
moving part. Well, they are being very successful at regulating the 
coal industry out of existence.
  Now, we are to step three. If it stops moving, subsidize it. That is 
what the amendment we are discussing would do. It is saying the coal 
industry is on its knees, not acknowledging that they are the ones that 
put it there. Then they are saying: So let's take money for all of 
those coal jobs that are being lost due to their policies and let's 
subsidize it. Let's give them economic development money. Further, 
let's give it to the administration in Washington to sprinkle about to 
whom they think it should go to, rather than letting the States that 
are producing this coal have a fraction of the money that is being 
produced from their States. This is the Federal Government's mentality 
run amok.
  This is something that Ronald Reagan talked about when he said: If it 
moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, 
subsidize it.
  These people don't want subsidies. They want their jobs. They want 
their communities. They don't want subsidies from the Federal 
Government.
  That said, the omnibus bill that we just passed last month had $90 
million for economic development in areas that are losing jobs due to 
coal policies. For crying out loud, we have lost our minds.
  I urge you to oppose the Cartwright amendment.
  Mr. ZINKE. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, with all due respect--and I do have ample 
respect for my colleague from Wyoming--I will say this: Taxing it is 
not the issue here. Regulating it is not the issue here. Subsidizing it 
is not the issue here. We are talking about money that has already been 
allocated. In fact, Wyoming itself is slated to get $53.8 million. The 
point here is that this is money that is going to States that are 
already certified as having properly finished their mine reclamation.
  The proposal of this amendment is to take that money--it is not new 
tax, it is not new regulation, it is not a new subsidy--it is just take 
that money and spread it out among the States that are still reclaiming 
their mines, including northeastern Pennsylvania and all of 
Pennsylvania. We are talking about taking it from the four States that 
have been certified by the Federal Government as having completed their 
mine reclamation and spreading it out among the States that have not 
done so completely at this point and continue to work on it.
  Further, this is money that is not being taken from the tribes. I am 
not sure where that idea came from. It is money that is given to the 
States, not the tribes. Therefore, it makes sense to send it to the 
communities where the mines are still causing trouble and are still 
being reclaimed.
  Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Cartwright amendment to H.R. 
1644.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  1600


            Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Sewell of Alabama

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in House Report 114-395.
  Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 5, line 3, before the period insert ``or cause or 
     significantly contribute to the development of negative 
     chronic or long-term health conditions''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 583, the gentlewoman 
from Alabama (Ms. Sewell) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman.
  Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple and 
straightforward. Moreover, I do not believe it conflicts with the 
intent of this legislation.
  Alabama has a long and rich history of coal production that provides 
my constituents and Americans across the country with affordable and 
reliable energy as well as good-paying jobs.
  As a representative of Alabama, I am a strong supporter of an all-of-
the-above energy strategy. I support the development and use of 
renewable energy like wind and solar as well as the traditional sources 
of energy like coal. Coal is very important in my State.
  However, I also believe that it is Congress' responsibility to ensure 
that energy is produced in a way that does not adversely impact the 
long-term safety or health of my constituents. That is why I have 
offered this amendment to H.R. 1644.
  This amendment makes an important addition to the exception clause in 
section 2 of the bill. It simply ensures that rules will not be delayed 
if such a delay would cause or significantly contribute to the 
development of a negative, chronic, or long-term health condition.
  We have an obligation as representatives of the people to ensure that 
regulations are not only sensible but also pragmatic. They must also 
not be threatened by the policies and regulations, those things that 
directly affect the public health. I believe all of my colleagues share 
this belief. I know that my Republican colleagues share my concern for 
public health.
  The legislation already includes an exception clause that says a rule 
cannot be delayed if it would pose an imminent and severe threat to 
human life. I strongly support this clause, but it is not enough to 
simply protect the public from imminent and severe health effects.
  Cancer and lung disease are illnesses that are chronic and often not 
developed except over years. We should also ensure that the public's 
long-term health and well-being is protected.
  This is a commonsense amendment that will protect the public health. 
I urge all of my colleagues to vote for it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.

[[Page H319]]

  

  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, although this is a very well-intended 
amendment, the purpose of the section of the bill affected by this 
amendment is already to ensure that good science is used in the 
development of the rules by making the scientific products on which the 
rule is based publicly available for review and already provides for an 
emergency exemption if the delay in the publication of a rule during 
this public review will pose ``an imminent and severe threat to human 
life.'' An imminent and severe threat to human life, that is already 
addressed in the text of the bill. Mr. Chairman, I believe that this is 
unnecessary.
  We also have protection under the existing Surface Mining Control and 
Reclamation Act, SMCRA. It is to ``establish a nationwide program to 
protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface 
coal mining operations.''
  The law and the proposed bill that is before us today already are 
designed to help protect human health and the environment. So although 
this is a well-intended amendment, it is unnecessary, given this 
background.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I think 
that the plain reading of the bill, the bill itself, talks about 
imminent and imminent threat. It doesn't necessarily deal with long-
term effect.
  My commonsense amendment would just make sure that any rules that 
actually affect public health that is chronic in nature and long term 
would also be covered with the exception.
  I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I am from a pro-
coal State, but I also think it is really important to be pro-public 
health. I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Sewell amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Alabama 
will be postponed.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 114-395 on 
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Kildee of Michigan.
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Cartwright of Pennsylvania.
  Amendment No. 4 by Ms. Sewell of Alabama.
  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. Kildee

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189, 
noes 223, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 38]

                               AYES--189

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Dold
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huizenga (MI)
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kirkpatrick
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Miller (MI)
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Nugent
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Trott
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
       
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--223

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Doggett
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Reed
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Beatty
     DeLauro
     Duncan (SC)
     Huelskamp
     Huffman
     Hurd (TX)
     Jackson Lee
     Kennedy
     Kind
     Kuster
     Larson (CT)
     Palazzo
     Ratcliffe
     Schrader
     Serrano
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Westmoreland
     Williams

                              {time}  1628

  Messrs. ROGERS of Alabama, LATTA, Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS, Mr. 
McCLINTOCK, Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER, Messrs. MASSIE and WITTMAN changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''

[[Page H320]]

  

  Messrs. TROTT, GUTIERREZ, and HUIZENGA of Michigan changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. HURD of Texas. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 38, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''


               Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Cartwright

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 203, 
noes 219, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 39]

                               AYES--203

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Barletta
     Barr
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Dent
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Harris
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kirkpatrick
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--219

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barton
     Bass
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Duncan (SC)
     Granger
     Grothman
     Kennedy
     Kind
     Kuster
     Palazzo
     Roskam
     Smith (WA)
     Westmoreland
     Williams


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1633

  Messrs. DOLD and GALLEGO changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


            Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Sewell of Alabama

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 190, 
noes 235, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 40]

                               AYES--190

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader

[[Page H321]]


     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--235

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Ashford
     Duncan (SC)
     Kennedy
     Kind
     Palazzo
     Smith (WA)
     Westmoreland
     Williams


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1636

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Smith of Nebraska) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, Acting Chair 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
1644) to amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 
to ensure transparency in the development of environmental regulations, 
and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 583, 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 the amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

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

       Mr. Kildee moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1644 to the 
     Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith, with the following 
     amendment:
       Page 5, strike line 3 and insert ``either an imminent or 
     long-term threat to human life or increase the incidence or 
     prevalence of lung cancer, heart or kidney disease, birth 
     defects, or heavy metal contamination in communities in the 
     vicinities of mountaintop removal coal mining projects.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, this final amendment to the bill will not 
kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will 
immediately proceed to final passage as amended.
  The bill is yet another attempt to delay the issuance of new and 
updated regulations to protect our streams, our rivers, and our 
communities from mountaintop coal mining. These safeguards are 
important for protecting the health and safety of the drinking water in 
communities and of children living near mountaintop removal coal 
mining.
  Mr. Speaker, my motion would prevent the stream protection rule from 
being delayed if there is an increase in the incidence or prevalence of 
lung cancer, heart or kidney disease, birth defects, or heavy metal 
contamination in these communities.
  We cannot allow the underlying bill to further delay important 
protections of public health. I know, firsthand, what happens when 
protections are not strong enough to prevent heavy metals, mainly lead, 
from contaminating drinking water. I have seen thousands of kids in my 
hometown of Flint, Michigan, poisoned by lead-contaminated water.
  Let me repeat: Today, in the 21st century, thousands of children 
being poisoned by lead in their drinking water due to the lack of 
effective enforcement.
  For 14 months, in my hometown of Flint, children, citizens have been 
exposed to drinking water with very high levels of lead. These kids, 
especially, will face consequences.
  This is not a problem without victims. Children will face cognitive 
difficulties, developmental problems, behavioral issues, all because in 
Michigan our Governor appointed an emergency financial manager to take 
over the city of Flint, and without any concern for health or the 
welfare of the people who live there, simply to save a few dollars, 
switched the city of Flint, not by the city itself, but the State of 
Michigan switched the city of Flint from Lake Huron to the Flint River 
as its primary drinking water source.
  That highly corrosive river water led to lead leaching into the water 
system and, for 14 months, going into the bodies of people in my 
hometown, into children, all because of ineffective, lackluster 
enforcement of protections built into the law.

                              {time}  1645

  These kids in my hometown have a right to expect that the water 
coming through the faucet is safe for them to drink, and the Department 
of Environmental Quality in Michigan was warned--warned--by the EPA, 
warned by a researcher from Virginia Tech who came to Flint to study 
the water, and warned by a local pediatrician who saw elevated lead 
levels in the children's blood in Flint, Michigan.
  What was the State's response? To try to discredit those claims that 
there were elevated lead levels, to actually--believe it or not--tell 
the people of the city of Flint that those researchers are wrong and 
they should just relax. That is what they were told. Relax.
  This is the 21st century. We ought to have in place adequate 
protections to

[[Page H322]]

make sure that drinking water is safe. What has been the response, even 
now in my own hometown in the State of Michigan? There have been some 
news conferences, but from July, when the State was first made aware of 
this, until today, the State has yet to step in to even supply bottled 
water, relying on the generosity of corporations, of labor unions, and 
of citizens, neighbors helping neighbors.
  Unfortunately, I think they see this more as a public relations 
problem than as a public health emergency. This is what happens when we 
don't recognize the importance of regulation to protect public health. 
This is what happens when we weaken protections for drinking water for 
our environment and for our land.
  Is this really what we want to do? Or don't we have an obligation to 
do everything in our power to protect the people back home, to protect 
children from this terrible, terrible kind of contamination?
  The steps that we are taking today that are on the floor of the House 
will simply be one more step to weaken those sorts of protections. My 
motion to recommit would correct that.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to please join me. Protect our 
people, protect our land, and protect our kids. Join me in supporting 
this motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I urge us to reject this motion. It is only 
going to delay passage of this excellent piece of legislation. We just 
rejected a very similar amendment moments ago, and that was a 
substantive amendment. This is a procedural--not even a substantive--
amendment.
  The bill does three great things, and that is why we need to pass the 
bill. It promotes transparency and scientific integrity. It requires an 
independent third-party review of the proposed OSM, Office of Surface 
Mining Bureau, rule. And it prevents OSM from regulatory overreach. So 
for those three important reasons, we should pass this bill.
  When it comes to health in particular, let me read a sentence from 
the text of the bill: ``This subsection shall not apply if a delay in 
the publication of a rule will pose an imminent and severe threat to 
human life.''
  So we do already address health. It is covered in the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a rejection of the motion to recommit and the 
passage of H.R. 1644.
  Mr. Speaker, 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

  Mr. KILDEE. 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 passage of the bill, if ordered; and the motion to 
suspend the rules and pass H.R. 757.
  This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 186, 
noes 237, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 41]

                               AYES--186

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blum
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--237

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Duncan (SC)
     Fitzpatrick
     Kennedy
     Kind
     Palazzo
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Smith (WA)
     Westmoreland
     Williams


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1653

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.

[[Page H323]]

  



                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 235, 
noes 188, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 42]

                               AYES--235

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--188

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Cardenas
     Cleaver
     Duncan (SC)
     Kennedy
     Kind
     Palazzo
     Smith (WA)
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1659

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________