[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.
____________________