[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4769-4783]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PREVENTING GOVERNMENT WASTE AND PROTECTING COAL MINING JOBS IN AMERICA


                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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. 2824.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 501 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. 2824.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1231


                     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. 2824) to amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 
1977 to stop the ongoing waste by the Department of the Interior of 
taxpayer resources and implement the final rule on excess spoil, mining 
waste, and buffers for perennial and intermittent streams, and for 
other purposes, with Mr. Woodall 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 Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Holt) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  It is well-known the Obama administration has waged a long-running 
war on coal, which last year a White House adviser admitted ``is 
exactly what's needed,'' but this is not only a war on coal. It is a 
war on jobs, our economy, affordable energy, small businesses, and the 
household budgets of American families. Already faced with higher home 
heating costs, middle class families will be further squeezed if the 
Obama administration is successful in its attempts to shut down coal 
production.
  One of the ways the administration has carried out this war on coal 
is through the reckless rewrite of a coal production regulation, the 
2008 Stream Buffer Zone Rule. Shortly after taking office, the Obama 
administration discarded the 2008 rule that went through 5 years of 
extensive public comment and environmental review. Since then, the 
administration has spent over 10 million taxpayer dollars in working to 
rewrite this rule, including hiring new contractors, then only to 
dismiss those same contractors once it was publicly revealed that the 
administration's proposed rewrite would cost 7,000 jobs and cause 
economic harm in 22 States. A report released by our House Natural 
Resources Committee staff in September of 2012, following years of 
oversight and investigations, exposed the gross mismanagement of the 
rulemaking process, potential political interference, and widespread 
economic harm the proposed regulation would cause.
  Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of the Interior's Office of 
Inspector General, or IG, released a report with similar findings. 
However, what is more troubling is that the IG has identified 
significant ongoing problems with the rulemaking process. To make 
matters worse, they are refusing to disclose those problems to us here 
in Congress. For example, there is an entire section of the report that 
we have received, entitled ``Issues with the New Contract,'' that have 
been almost completely blacked out. Despite our repeated requests, 
Deputy Inspector General Mary Kendall has refused to give Congress an 
unredacted copy of this report. In a letter, she states that the 
Department of the Interior decided that it should be withheld from the 
committee.
  The IG is charged with being an independent watchdog for Congress. It 
is completely unacceptable and inappropriate for the IG to be taking 
orders from the Interior Department, especially about what information 
to withhold from us here in Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I don't take what I am going to say lightly. That is 
why, today, I have issued a subpoena to the Department's Inspector 
General Kendall for this information that she has withheld from us. If 
the IG discovered ongoing issues with the way the Department is 
currently conducting this rulemaking process, they have a 
responsibility and a duty to share that information with Congress now. 
The committee is not asking the IG for materials produced by the 
Department, but we are asking for materials and interviews produced by 
the IG's staff.
  The Obama administration's rulemaking process has been and continues 
to be an unmitigated disaster. Despite having spent millions of 
taxpayer dollars, they have absolutely nothing to show for it and, to 
date, haven't even produced a draft. Meanwhile, States, industry, and 
America's coal miners are left in limbo, unsure of what the operating 
rules are on the ground. Without the 2008 rule, we are left with a rule 
that was put in place in 1983.
  That is why we are here today--to consider H.R. 2824, the Preventing 
Government Waste and Protecting Coal Mining Jobs in America Act. This 
legislation will put an end to the years of ongoing waste and 
dysfunction. It will put in place a responsible process to ensure there 
is no rush to recklessly regulate.
  First, Mr. Chairman, it stops the administration's unnecessary 
rewrite and implements the 2008 Stream Buffer Zone Rule that I 
mentioned took 5 years to put in place. It then directs the Department 
to responsibly study the impact of the rule for a prescribed period of 
time prior to initiating another new rule. This will provide certainty 
to the economy, to the individual States, and allow a clear examination 
of what may be needed and changed in the future. This bill will make 
certain that a new rule is written properly.
  Now, some will attempt to criticize this bill for the fact that it 
puts in place the 2008 rule that was vacated on a very narrow technical 
ground by a Federal judge last month. There is really nothing new here, 
however, because this is the exact outcome that the administration has 
been seeking

[[Page 4770]]

for over 5 years--to get rid of the 2008 rule. But let's be clear what 
the court ruling and, subsequently, the Department's actions really 
mean.
  The court ruling strikes down the more protective 2008 rule and sets 
us back 30 years to a less restrictive 1983 rule. The 2008 rule is more 
modern and more protective in limiting the impacts of coal mining than 
the 1983 rule, but one Federal judge ruled that the 2008 rule must be 
set aside due to a narrow procedural technicality. This judge ruled, 
because the 2008 rule didn't have formal consultation with the Fish and 
Wildlife Service on possible impacts to endangered species, the entire 
rule should be set aside and, thus, revert back to the 1983 rule.
  Mr. Chairman, for the record, there were multiple meetings and 
discussions and consultations with Fish and Wildlife in proposing the 
2008 rule regarding species when the 2008 rule was written, and it was 
done in a published and transparent fashion over a multiple-year 
period. Comments were taken and recommendations were made, but the 
bureaucratic process wasn't done precisely so, and as a result, this 
judge struck it down. Compare this conscientious effort, which was done 
to protect species in the 2008 rule, with the fact that there was 
absolutely zero consultation of protecting species in the 1983 rule.
  What could be the responsible thing to do? Clearly, it would be to 
implement the more modern and protective 2008 rule. What does the Obama 
administration say? It says let's go back to 1983. Why should we go 
back? It simply makes no sense to discard a modern rule, where we know 
the ESA consultation took place, for a 30-year-old rule that we know 
had no ESA consultations.
  Perhaps we should look to the people whom the Obama administration 
hired to write a rule of its own. In case notes that the committee 
obtained from the IG's office during their investigation, it quotes one 
of the current contractors, admitting, ``The 1983 rule was less 
restrictive than the 2008 rule.'' In the same case notes, it also 
states about the current contractor that, although she is a Democrat, 
the Stream Protection Rule appears to be an ``effort to kill coal 
mining.'' There you have it--straight from the mouth of the person who 
is working on the current rewrite--an admission that the new rule is an 
effort to ``kill coal mining.''
  That is why we must take action today to stop this administration. 
Not only are they attempting to impose a new coal regulation that will 
destroy thousands of American mining jobs, but they have also wasted 5 
years and over 10 million taxpayer dollars on a process that has been 
completely dysfunctional and misguided.
  Enough is enough. Republicans want to create an America that works, 
and that requires access to affordable energy. If we do not stop the 
administration from implementing its new coal regulation, thousands of 
Americans will be out of work, and home heating costs for working 
middle class families will rise.
  Let's pass this legislation to protect American taxpayer dollars, to 
protect American jobs, and to end this administration's reckless, 
wasteful rewrite by putting in place a responsible process that will 
allow a proper new rule to be written.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in strong opposition to this legislation that would ignore the 
poisonous environmental impacts of mountaintop removal mining and would 
attempt to force States to adopt a discredited and vacated midnight 
Bush administration rule.
  Mountaintop removal mining is a serious environmental health threat 
in Appalachia. Companies literally blast the tops off of mountains, 
scoop out the coal, and dump what is left over--what used to be the 
mountaintop and the mining residue--into the valley below. In the 
process, landscapes are scarred; wild habitat is destroyed; mountain 
streams are buried; fish are killed; and the long-suffering people 
living in the valleys suffer as they are left with degraded water.
  It is not simply my opinion or the warnings of a few fringe 
environmental groups. This is what the science tells us. In a paper 
published in the journal Science a few years ago--a preeminent 
scientific journal--dozens of scientists laid this out very clearly. 
Building on a wealth of recent scientific data from a variety of 
researchers, they wrote:

       Mountaintop mining in the valley fills revealed serious 
     environmental impacts that mitigation practices cannot 
     successfully address.

  Now, the chairman today is talking about detailed procedural matters. 
He is wrong on that. The real point is the health of the people in the 
valleys. These scientists described:

       When streams are buried, water emerges from the base of the 
     valley fills, containing a variety of solutes that are toxic 
     and damaging to biota, and that the recovery of biodiversity 
     in mining waste impacted streams has not been documented.

  In other words, the recovery that they talk about does not exist in 
fact. It has not been shown to be possible.

                              {time}  1245

  Most frighteningly for the people who live with these impacts in 
their backyards, the scientists write:

       Adult hospitalizations for chronic pulmonary disorders and 
     hypertension are elevated as a function of county-level coal 
     production . . .

  They know it comes from this.
  To continue the quote:

     . . . as are the rates of mortality, lung cancer, chronic 
     heart, lung, and kidney disease.

  Hospitalizations, hypertension, lung cancer, heart disease, kidney 
disease, increased flooding. Water with dangerous concentrations of 
toxic metals? Yes. That is what the science says. And the destruction 
of forests and streams.
  These are the impacts of mountaintop removal mining that Congress 
should be addressing today. This is what we should be holding hearings 
on and writing legislation about.
  We should be making the protection of people and the environment of 
the Appalachian region our top priority and making the mining companies 
act responsibly, not just cheaply. But the Republicans, Mr. Chairman, 
don't seem to want to talk about any of these impacts. They prefer to 
keep their heads in the sand and the gravel and the toxic waste when it 
comes to this issue.
  Instead of the real impacts of mountaintop removal mining, they are 
focusing on imagined impacts of a rule that hasn't even been released 
yet. They imagine a war on coal, they imagine a political conspiracy to 
subvert the rule that the Bush administration put in place in the last 
minutes of their administration, instead of seeking to guarantee clean 
water for all Americans.
  So they spent years trying to uncover that conspiracy, all the while 
forcing the Department of the Interior to spend tens of thousands of 
hours of staff time and millions of taxpayer dollars in order to comply 
with their commands--and now their subpoenas. And they have come up 
empty.
  The inspector general for the Department of the Interior confirmed in 
December there were no political shenanigans. There was no misconduct. 
There was a poor choice of contractors, yes, and a debate among career 
staff about the proper way to move forward.
  Could it have been handled better? Maybe. But there was no 
misconduct.
  Meanwhile, the rule put in place by the Bush administration--the very 
rule that this bill would force States to adopt--was thrown out by a 
Federal court 2 weeks ago because the real misconduct was from the Bush 
administration, which decided that it didn't even need to consider the 
effects that destroying streams and rivers would have on threatened and 
endangered species. They did not do the consultation that is required 
under the law.
  So this bill would overturn the court's decision, forcibly enact a 
rule that was improperly developed in the first place, and forbid the 
Obama administration from actually doing something to protect the 
streams from being buried and to protect the people who live there.
  This bill would forbid them from actually doing something to protect 
forests, fish, wildlife, and humans. It

[[Page 4771]]

would forbid them from actually doing something to protect the health 
of the people in these communities. This bill would create its own 
reality through an amendment added at the last minute that would deem 
the 2008 rule to have met the requirements of the Endangered Species 
Act that the court said they did not meet.
  Now ``deem'' is a word that is not in common use. It certainly is a 
strange word the way it is used here in Congress. By ``deem,'' they 
mean they would declare in legislation that the Endangered Species Act 
was observed and that consultation had taken place, even though it 
wasn't and it hadn't. That is preposterous.
  I wish we could do the same thing to environmental destruction caused 
by mountaintop removal mining and to the contaminated water and to the 
health impacts by simply saying, by legislation, that contamination 
never happened. Those people were never affected. Their health never 
deteriorated. They didn't die. But we can't do that.
  This bill does nothing to protect people from the destructive impacts 
of mountaintop removal mining. It is strongly opposed by a coalition of 
environmental groups like the Southern Environmental Law Center, the 
Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters, the National Parks 
Conservation Association, and many more.
  It is not just me standing here talking about it. It is not even just 
these scientists. It is many more.
  Once again, I want everyone to understand that the real issue here 
today is not bureaucratic procedure. It is not even when a rule might 
have been issued and what went into making up that rule. What is at 
stake today is safe water for people, the health of the population, and 
an environment that can save us all.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), the 
subcommittee chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee dealing 
with this legislation.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2824, the Preventing 
Government Waste and Protecting Coal Mining Jobs in America Act. This 
critical piece of legislation, which was introduced by Representative 
Bill Johnson and myself, is designed to save taxpayer dollars and 
protect American jobs by putting the Office of Surface Mining on a 
responsible path forward for managing and regulating coal mining in 
America.
  So far, the Obama administration has spent nearly 10 million taxpayer 
dollars rewriting a coal production rule and the 2008 Stream Buffer 
Zone Rule, but the 2008 rule was never fully implemented. The 
administration is conducting this rewrite without ever providing 
justification for the need for a new rule.
  The $10 million does not include the money spent on attorneys fees 
and costly litigation or the internal costs borne by the agency. Even 
more critically, it does not include the costs to the families of the 
thousands of workers who have been displaced or seen work delayed by 
the regulatory inaction of the Department.
  The legislation before us today is very simple. It would cripple the 
Obama administration's war on coal by ending their unnecessary rewrite 
and it would require the Office of Surface Mining to implement the 2008 
Stream Buffer Zone Rule. This rule was developed over 5 years through 
an open, public, multimillion-dollar process and requires consultation 
on endangered species where necessary.
  Under this legislation, H.R. 2824, once all the plans have been 
approved, the effects of the new regulations will be analyzed for a 
period of 5 years. On completion of this analysis, the Office of 
Surface Mining is required to report back to us on the effectiveness of 
the rule, impact on energy production, and to identify and justify 
anything that should be addressed through a new rulemaking process.
  If the Obama administration had followed this process from the 
beginning, taxpayers would have 9 million more dollars, thousands of 
unemployed Americans would likely have jobs, and we would be far along 
in the process of understanding the impacts and environmental benefits 
of the 2008 rulemaking. Unfortunately, this administration's first act 
was to discard the rule and plunge head first into a failed, wasteful, 
and never-ending rulemaking process.
  This legislation will stop the massive ongoing waste, saving the 
taxpayers money. It will stop the administration from continuing with a 
reckless rulemaking process and imposing a needless regulation that 
will directly cost thousands of hardworking American jobs and cause 
significant American economic harm.
  This bill will also provide regulatory certainty for an important 
domestic industry--an industry that not only provides great family-wage 
jobs with good benefits, but also provides affordable energy for the 
American people and the Nation's manufacturing base.
  I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking minority member of the 
Resources Committee.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I appreciate the gentleman's statement and leadership.
  What are we doing here today? We are going to take a rule established 
by Ronald Reagan, the first modest attempt to protect water quality, 
stream quality, forests, and other environmental values in cases of 
strip mining mountaintop removal.
  So the Republicans today are going to overrule the judgment of Ronald 
Reagan, preempt him with a rule that basically says it is okay to blow 
the top off a mountain, dump it into a stream, and it doesn't affect 
water quality because the stream doesn't exist anymore. Except there is 
a little problem. The water does still leach through all the toxic 
soils and it does cause problems downstream. But let's not worry about 
that too much.
  Secondly, they are going to preempt states rights. Hey, the party of 
states' rights. They are all for local control. They hate those one-
size-fits-all Federal rules, don't they? No, not today.
  We are going to impose a Bush administration midnight rule which a 
court found to be laughable in terms of its compliance with Federal 
law. They are going to impose that on all the States of the United 
States of America as the law of the land. We are going to preempt the 
judgment of any State that wants to do more to protect water quality 
than allow the tops to be blown off mountains and mining waste dumped 
into streams and saying there is no problem. But we will study it for 5 
years, as we heard previously. Okay, sure. How much harm will happen in 
that time?
  So those are a few of the problems and the inconsistencies I see here 
today. We are preempting a Reagan rule that was quite modest and not 
overly burdensome on the industry. It should have been improved upon. 
The Bush administration tried to totally undo it. It was laughed out of 
court. The Obama administration fumbled and messed up writing a new 
rule with an incompetent contractor. And now we are going to impose the 
Bush rule on all the States.
  They are going to deem, as we heard earlier--that is, pretend--that 
it meets the Endangered Species Act, and give that pretension the force 
of law. What they are saying is there were at least two or three people 
in the Bush administration who had a conversation. That meant they 
talked about the Endangered Species Act, so that meets the intention of 
the Endangered Species Act.
  Finally, they are talking about a war on coal. We will hear from some 
well-intentioned people later here today who are going to talk about 
the potential job impact of this, and I appreciate that. There has to 
be a balance. But this is not a balance.
  This is yet another imaginary war being waged by the Obama 
administration on coal. A war on Christmas, a war on coal, a war on 
jobs, a war on whatever. At least it is not an overseas war

[[Page 4772]]

that is unnecessary in Iraq that cost us many thousands of lives and 
trillions of dollars.
  But the war on coal? When the Obama administration came into office, 
there were 5,000 less jobs in coal mining than there are today.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HOLT. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. The Obama administration leased out 2.1 billion tons of 
coal in the Powder River Basin in its first term. That is twice what 
the Bush administration leased in the 4 years before that. Recent 
accounts from the GAO lead us to believe that maybe they were a little 
too cozy with the industry and in fact that those deals were a little 
too sweet for that 2.1 billion tons of coal.
  So that is a war on coal? No. What they are talking about is actually 
less coal is being used to produce electricity.
  Now they are also the party of market forces and capitalism. Well, 
guess what? Market forces and capitalism have reduced the use of coal. 
Natural gas was really, really, really cheap a couple of years ago. 
Coal used to generate electricity. It totally tanked. It had nothing to 
do with the Obama administration. It had to do with market forces, and 
they worship the market. I hope they are not trying to undo market 
forces here and have some kind of socialist dictate.
  So what has happened is coal use has bumped up a little bit as 
natural gas has become a little bit more expensive. But that was about 
economics and not policy.
  The bottom line here is should we allow, without any regulation, 
blowing the tops off mountains, dumping them into valleys, filling in 
streams, and pretend it has no impact on the environment. And I would 
say ``no.''

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), the author of this legislation.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, today, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 2824, the Preventing Government Waste and Protecting Coal Mining 
Jobs in America Act, legislation that I introduced with my friend and 
colleague, Congressman Doug Lamborn.
  This important legislation addresses the administration's flawed, 
waste of taxpayer money, and job-killing rewrite of the Stream Buffer 
Zone Rule.
  Immediately upon taking over in 2009, the administration began their 
efforts to rewrite the Stream Buffer Zone Rule, even though a new rule 
that took 5 years to codify had just been finished in 2008.
  From the beginning, the Office of Surface Mining and the Department 
of the Interior fumbled the ball, and it has been a train wreck and 
lack of leadership over the past 5 years.
  Nearly $10 million of taxpayer money has been wasted by the 
administration in their attempts to destroy thousands of direct and 
indirect jobs and cause electricity prices to skyrocket.
  We know from the administration's own estimates that their preferred 
rule would cost 7,000 direct coal jobs and thousands more indirect 
jobs, not to mention that States like mine in Ohio would see their 
electricity prices skyrocket thanks to increased coal prices.
  We also know, from the whistleblower contractors that worked on the 
rule, that the political appointees in the Office of Surface Mining 
tried to cover up these job loss numbers because they knew how 
politically damaging they would be in the runup to the 2012 election 
year.
  In fact, a political appointee threatened the contractors that there 
``would be consequences'' if the contractor refused to change the 
numbers.
  Furthermore, a recent report from the inspector general at the 
Department of the Interior confirmed these findings and even quoted the 
President-appointed and Senate-approved Director of OSM, saying that we 
need to ``fix the job loss numbers.''
  Is this the type of good government that the American people expect 
of our leadership, a rulemaking process that sees political appointees 
threatening contractors and cooking the books to get a preferred 
outcome?
  Under the leadership of Chairman Doc Hastings, the Natural Resources 
Committee has been aggressively investigating the malfeasance and 
flawed rewrite of this rule. In a serious threat to the separation of 
powers spelled out in the Constitution, the administration has largely 
ignored requests and subpoenas for relevant documents.
  This is just another example of a Presidency and administration 
ignoring the will of the people and abusing power.
  That is why this legislation is so important, Mr. Chairman. It will 
ensure that my constituents in eastern and southeastern Ohio, along 
with other hardworking Americans employed by the coal industry all 
across the country, can keep their jobs and continue to mine and use 
the coal that powers our manufacturing engine here in America.
  It directs the States to implement the 2008 rule, a rule that had 
tens of thousands of comments and was thoroughly vetted before being 
thrown aside by the incoming administration.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. After 5 years, the States would be asked to 
report back with a description in detail of any proposed changes that 
should be made to the rule.
  This legislation ensures that the States that are directly impacted 
by the proposed rule would have an actual say-so in the process, 
instead of a topdown approach from the Office of Surface Mining.
  Despite what some may say, it does not stop the administration from 
protecting waterways or the environment.
  Mr. Chairman, the rewrite of this rule has cost the taxpayers nearly 
$10 million and threatens to shut down underground coal mining in 
America, killing thousands of jobs in the process.
  I thank Chairman Hastings and Congressman Lamborn for their 
leadership on this important issue, and I urge all of my colleagues to 
support this legislation.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my friend 
from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), a champion for people's health, for 
wildlife and the environment, an outspoken critic of destructive mining 
practices, and the sponsor of the Appalachian Communities Health--
emphasis on health--Emergency Act, a bill on which I am pleased to join 
him as a cosponsor.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Thank you, Mr. Holt, for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, this bottle is filled with water from a well near a 
mountaintop removal mining site in eastern Kentucky. In case you can't 
see it, the water is orange.
  This is what comes out of the taps in Appalachian communities where 
the water is contaminated by dangerous mine waste, which fills their 
wells and flows through the streams in their yards.
  It is the result of an inadequate law that is failing to protect 
public health and safety near mountaintop removal mining sites; but 
today, rather than examining ways to strengthen that law and begin to 
address the public health crisis that accompanies mountaintop removal 
mining in Appalachia, we are debating a bill that would make it worse.
  Mining communities already have more instances of chronic pulmonary 
disorders and hypertension, as well as higher mortality rates, lung 
cancer rates, and instances of chronic heart, kidney, and lung disease. 
Proximity to mountaintop removal mining operations also correlates with 
a higher risk of birth defects and damage to the circulatory and 
central nervous systems.
  Yet, instead of finding ways to better balance public health and 
safety with coal mining--or at least working to prevent mining 
companies from turning our water supply this shade of toxic orange, we 
are debating a bill to roll back what little protection the Federal

[[Page 4773]]

Government currently offers these Appalachian communities.
  I sympathize with my colleagues' desire to protect jobs in the coal 
fields, and the loss of 75 percent of eastern Kentucky coal mining jobs 
due to mechanized mining over the past several decades has brought 
challenges; but a rule to protect waterways that has been in effect 
since 1983 is not the source of those challenges, nor is addressing the 
public health crisis that has unfolded in Appalachia as a result of 
mechanized mining.
  No one here would risk their health by drinking this water. If any of 
my colleagues want to prove me wrong, I invite them to come have a sip.
  It is bad enough that children who live in mining communities color 
their streams orange when they draw their environment, but it is tragic 
that the water they drink is denying them the healthy future they 
deserve.
  We are risking the health of families in mining communities in 
Kentucky and throughout Appalachia by continuing to ignore the toxic 
orange water that pollutes their drinking supply.
  I urge my colleagues to stand up for public health and vote against 
this legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), a member of the Natural 
Resources Committee.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Hastings and Chairman 
Lamborn and my friend from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, for introducing this 
important legislation.
  I had the great honor, for nearly 10 years prior to coming to 
Congress, to be on the North Dakota Public Service Commission, where we 
carried the SMCRA laws and enforced the Federal SMCRA laws on behalf of 
our lignite coal industry that employs thousands of people.
  We had a little over 100,000 acres under permit, mined 30 million 
tons of coal every year, and burned it to generate electricity, very 
low-cost electricity.
  We had a great relationship with our Federal Government, our Federal 
partners. We did it in partnership. They appreciated and honored State 
primacy. We carried out the letter and the spirit of the law very well.
  As a consequence, we have clean streams; clean water; clean air; 
good, rich topsoil; as well as the jobs that come with it.
  We don't have mountains, so a rule that was designed by somebody to 
deal with mountain removal mining doesn't really match the prairie of 
North Dakota, which is always the problem with one-size-fits-all 
regulations; and that is what we find so offensive back home, is when 
the Federal Government tries to fix every problem with one piece of 
legislation or one regulation.
  We were very familiar--I worked with the 2008 rule. It works just 
fine. It involved stakeholder involvement. It involved consultation 
with stakeholders. We are missing that in this particular case.
  Quite honestly, I guess when you talk about the war on coal, and some 
might want to deny that one exists, you might believe that if it was 
just one rule occasionally; but in the context of the aggregate of all 
of the rules and regulations and laws coming down from this 
administration, it is hard not to believe that there is an attempt to 
unilaterally disarm our economy and the global marketplace with a war 
on coal.
  I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting for this important 
piece of legislation.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rahall), my good friend.
  Mr. RAHALL. I thank my dear colleague from New Jersey for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I do rise in support of the pending legislation, H.R. 
2824; and to my good friend, the chairman of the committee, Doc 
Hastings, I commend him for bringing this bill to the floor of the 
House.
  As he knows, I am the only Member left in this body that served on 
the original conference committee that wrote H.R. 2, which was enacted 
as the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, otherwise 
known as SMCRA.
  Due to the nature of my congressional district and my years of 
service on the Natural Resources Committee, I am very familiar with 
SMCRA and what it requires.
  This law has numerous performance standards governing the coal 
surface mining and reclamation process. These standards govern 
everything from the handling of excess spoil to the period for which 
successful revegetation must take place prior to bond release.
  One fundamental aspect of the performance standards is that the mine 
area be reclaimed to its approximate original contour, with one 
exception. The law is clear, and it provides for an exception from the 
approximate original contour requirement in the case of mountaintop 
removal operations if certain conditions are met.
  A stream buffer zone rule is not included among the many SMCRA 
performance standards. Such a rule was not contemplated by the 
conferees on H.R. 2 back in 1977. This rule was a manifestation of the 
bureaucracy.
  That is not to say that there should not be such a rule, but any such 
rule must work within the statutory framework of SMCRA.
  The effort by the current administration to replace the 2008 stream 
buffer zone promulgated by the Interior Department does not meet that 
test. It is clear, at least to me, that the effort by the current 
administration to revise the 2008 rule is aimed at halting a mining 
practice that is specifically condoned by SMCRA.
  Fundamentally, there is no question; this debate is about jobs. It is 
about good-paying jobs in West Virginia and other areas of the 
Appalachian region.
  Mr. Chairman, it is about our economy, whether it be providing needed 
flat land for agriculture or industrial facilities or saving millions 
of dollars by providing a readymade roadbed for a new highway, as has 
been done, and is continuing to be proposed in Mingo County, in the 
congressional district I am honored to represent.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of the pending measure, 
the Preventing Government Waste and Protecting Coal Mining Jobs in 
America Act. I commend, again, the chairman of the committee, and I 
commend my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Johnson) for his introducing this 
bill as well.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), a new Member, not necessarily 
a brand-new Member, but a newer Member.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in really 
strong support of H.R. 2824.
  I think if we go back to the President's original candidacy, he said: 
Listen, if you want to continue to make electricity using coal-fired 
power plants, you can do it, but we are going to bankrupt you.
  There is no question about the war on coal. It is factual. Now, we 
come here today, and I think that--the area of the country that I 
represent is western Pennsylvania. It is hard to look at a source that 
is so abundant, so accessible, so affordable, so reliant, and so 
sustainable that keeps our energy costs lower and creates thousands of 
jobs.
  The administration's efforts have not only eliminated people who are 
mining coal, they have absolutely eliminated entire communities and 
wiped them off the face of the Earth.
  Now, we look at a piece of legislation, and we say wait a minute. In 
2008, we had a rule that received certification from the Environmental 
Protection Agency and complied fully with the Clean Water Act.
  So the question becomes: How good does the coal energy have to become 
in order to receive a pat on the back from the administration?
  The answer is they can never reach that level. They will never be 
accepted. It will never be part of our energy strategy. It will never 
lead America to be independent from every place else in the world.
  All you have to ask yourself is: What in the world are we doing to 
the people we represent?

[[Page 4774]]

  This is not a Republican strategy or a Democrat strategy. This is an 
American strategy. If it is truly about energy and about creating jobs 
and protecting our environment, it is all there, gentleman, and has 
been there for years.

                              {time}  1315

  Why would the administration spend $10 billion to get an answer that 
didn't comply with what they thought it was going to be? So 
automatically, the answer has to be: These folks didn't do the test the 
right way. They didn't come up with the results that we needed, so we 
are going to get rid of them and get somebody else in here.
  Mr. Chairman, the lights are going out across this country. Our 
position in the world is being challenged right now, in a country that 
has been so blessed for so long with abundant, affordable, and 
accessible energy, and to sit back and say: You know what? They are 
getting better, but they are never going to be good enough for us; they 
are never going to quite reach that metric they have to reach.
  In fact, the bottle of water the gentleman just showed, I have got to 
tell you: Take a bottle of Fiji water off the shelf; it won't comply 
either.
  So we have got to start asking ourselves, where is it that they are 
going with this? Is this a way to prop up an agenda by the 
administration or is this a way to prop up the American success story? 
Are we going to go forward and truly achieve independence from energy 
from anyplace else in the world other than our own or are we going to 
continue to fight over things that don't make sense to the American 
people but yet somehow make sense in this House?
  Listen, what we are doing today just makes sense. We have already run 
the traps on it. We have already run the tests. We have done all the 
metrics. Coal is good for America. Coal has always been good for 
America. Coal has cleaned itself up incredibly and will continue to do 
so. These are the most responsible people. I would invite some of my 
friends who have never been down in a coal mine, travel with me to 
western Pennsylvania. Go down in the Bailey mine. Go down 700 feet and 
see how they are scrubbing coal, and then say to me that they are not 
doing it the right way.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I really want to ask my 
colleagues today, let's take a real good look at this, at what we are 
doing. In a country that so badly now is looking for leadership across 
all phases so that we can retain our position in the world, let's take 
a look at where we are today with this coal strategy. If it is truly a 
war on coal and if it is truly a war we can't win, then I say that is 
not why we came here.
  I strongly urge the passage of H.R. 2824.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), a Member of this body who has been 
a leader on countless environmental issues, my friend from Virginia who 
knows the harmful effects that mountaintop removal mining has had in 
his own State and throughout the Appalachian region.
  Mr. MORAN. I thank my very good friend from New Jersey for yielding 
to me, and I thank my very good friend from Arizona.
  Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to this so-called Preventing 
Government Waste and Protecting Coal Mining Jobs in America bill. I 
know that is what this bill's sponsors have tried to suggest, but the 
fact is that this promotes destructive mountaintop mining removal and 
it doesn't protect jobs.
  The goal of this bill is to require all States to incorporate a now 
vacated 2008 rule that was issued in the very last days of the Bush 
administration and was then struck down by a U.S. Federal court. It was 
an eleventh-hour regulation that was designed to repeal Reagan-era 
protections for streams and waterways from the impacts of mountaintop 
mining by providing a buffer zone for waste disposal. Its vague and 
permissive language sets an alarmingly low bar when it comes to 
protecting communities and wildlife habitats near mountaintop mining 
operations.
  The reality is that this midnight rulemaking of the Bush 
administration would only hasten further environmental destruction and 
increase the volume of toxic chemicals entering our water supply.
  This bill before the House represents a transparent attempt to 
resurrect an already rejected rule by forcibly enacting it across this 
country, thereby putting communities nearby coal mining plants at risk 
while undoing necessary protections from pollutants.
  But in addition to resurrecting this stream buffer zone rule, H.R. 
2824 comes with a 5-year mandatory implementation period that 
conveniently prohibits the Department of the Interior from issuing any 
new regulations to protect streams.
  So the public should be deeply troubled by what is a blatant 
disregard for public health. Americans living near coal mining 
operations are going to be harmed by this. Our legal process is 
jeopardized, and certainly the integrity of already fragile ecosystems 
will be put at risk.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HOLT. I would gladly yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN. I very much thank my good friend.
  An environmental impact statement found that between 1985 and 2002, 
nearly 2,000 miles of streams were buried or destroyed by mountaintop 
removal. Not surprisingly, peer-reviewed scientific studies continued 
to confirm the devastation on the surrounding environment and wildlife 
habitats of the numerous toxic chemicals, like arsenic and mercury, 
that enter into streams as mountaintops are blasted and bulldozed away.
  We found in a 2011 study that cancer rates were twice as high in 
communities exposed to the effects of mountaintop mining. In the 
journal Science, we found, likewise, chronic pulmonary disorders in 
coal country. A 2011 study of births in Appalachia from 1996 to 2003 
found that counties near mountaintop mining areas had substantially 
higher rates of multiple types of birth defects.
  Congress should welcome regulations that are going to save and 
enhance American lives, not put them in jeopardy; and unfortunately, 
this bill gives a green light to remove mountain summits and dump their 
waste into nearby valleys and streams.
  The fact is that coal has been the mainstay of Appalachia's economy 
for more than 100 years, but it has yet to make the region prosperous. 
We are talking about jobs. We need healthy people, and we need 
healthier environments. So I urge a rejection of this legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
  Mr. SCALISE. I appreciate my colleague yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Preventing Government 
Waste and Protecting Coal Mining Jobs in America Act introduced by my 
colleague from Ohio.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a war on coal by the Obama administration. It 
is being carried out every day throughout this country in many ways 
through rules and regulations imposed by radical agencies like the EPA, 
and so what we are doing here is pushing back and saying: Enough is 
enough. Stop killing jobs in America, Mr. President. Stop increasing 
energy costs for American families, hardworking taxpayers who are 
struggling in this bad economy.
  The President continues to pursue this global warming agenda. It is 
snowing outside of the Capitol right now as we speak in support of this 
bill, and they are still talking about global warming and imposing more 
regulations that are killing--killing--American jobs.
  If you look at the sue-and-settle process that has brought us to this 
point, that really is the reason behind legislation like the bill we 
are bringing

[[Page 4775]]

up today. The sue-and-settle process that the Obama administration is 
using through agencies like the EPA, in this case, has resulted in 
7,000 lost jobs and is wreaking havoc in 22 States. Just one rule.
  This isn't a bill that was passed through Congress. The President 
loves bragging about he has got a pen and a phone, yet he is using 
Federal agencies, not law passed by the people's House, debated in the 
open public view. Behind closed doors, they are going and trying to 
impose these radical regulations that are killing jobs in America. The 
President is going to spend days and days on the campaign trail, a 
campaign trail that never ends. He never leads and governs. He runs 
around campaigning, and his latest mantra is to talk about unemployment 
benefits. Mr. Chairman, the best unemployment benefit is a good job.
  The American people don't want to be getting unemployment checks from 
the Federal Government--they want jobs--and yet this administration, 
through its war on coal and so many other radical regulations, is 
killing jobs in America. Enough is enough. This legislation helps to 
undo the damage that President Obama's radical policies are wreaking 
through our economy.
  Again, I commend my colleague from Ohio for bringing this legislation 
forward. I think we will see a very strong bipartisan vote in support 
of helping get jobs back in our economy.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), my good friend and colleague 
from the Natural Resources Committee who has been a leader on standards 
and enforcement in mining and knows as well as anyone the time and 
energy that has been wasted in the committee's investigation of this 
stream protection rule, time that could have been spent protecting the 
environment and the people's health.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I thank my colleague from New Jersey for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, it is our singular responsibility, as Members of 
Congress, to protect the health and well-being of the American people. 
Voting ``yes'' to this legislation would do just the opposite. H.R. 
2824 is not only poisonous to our pristine rivers and waterways, but 
harmful to the health and well-being of the American people.
  H.R. 2824 is wrong at many levels. First, it seeks to lock in a 2008 
Bush administration rule that virtually eliminates the buffer zone 
protecting streams from mine waste. Just last month, a Federal court 
ruled that the 2008 rule that this legislation seeks to lock in was 
unlawful because it risked the federally protected endangered and 
threatened species.
  But the problem with this bill isn't limited to just endangered and 
threatened species. The bill would also violate the purposes and 
objectives of the Clean Water Act and those of the Surface Mining 
Control and Reclamation Act to minimize harm from surface mining. These 
are a few laws and regulations to protect rivers and waterways in our 
communities and ultimately ensuring public health and well-being. H.R. 
2824 is about eliminating our environmental safeguards and 
deteriorating our public health to provide legal loopholes for private 
mining companies.
  The effect of polluted waterways to our communities is catastrophic 
and costly. This year, we have already witnessed a few incidents. 
First, the chemical spill in Elk River in West Virginia in January. 
Then the coal spill in Dan River in North Carolina in February. While 
both these incidents remain unsolved and are being investigated, they 
have forced tens of thousands of residents to go without clean and safe 
water for weeks--and this legislation seeks to grant immunity to those 
violations.
  The bill will not only pollute more rivers and waterways and risk 
millions of Americans being without clean and safe water, but worse, it 
will poison millions of Americans. The question I want to ask my 
colleagues in this Chamber is: What kind of government poisons its own 
people? Is that the government we are?
  So with that, I urge Members who care about its people to oppose this 
poisoned legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes, again, to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), the 
chairman of the subcommittee dealing with this legislation.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the full committee chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues on the other side seem to continue living 
in the past. This bill isn't about the Bush administration. This bill 
is about the rampant failure of the Obama administration and its 
inability to craft a reasonable rule on coal mining. They have spent 5 
years and nearly $10 million on this rewrite. And for what? What have 
they produced? Absolutely nothing. Their waste-ridden, failed effort is 
apparently nothing more than a sham facade over a real agenda--to kill 
coal mining.
  You don't have to take my word for it. This is a direct quote from an 
inspector general investigator's interview with a current DOI 
contractor working on the rule, Emily Medine. She said the rule appears 
to be ``an effort to kill coal mining.''
  Also, the Department has continued to insist on falsifying the 
baseline to reduce the stated impacts of their rulemaking. As you can 
see from the interview with the current contractor, over here, OSM 
continues to insist that companies use the more restrictive but never 
implemented 2008 rule as a baseline in an effort to hide the real 
economic impacts of whatever rule they want to come up with. Again, 
don't take my word for it. Right here, OSM's own contractor says that 
by using the more restrictive 2008 rule, they will show fewer job 
losses.
  That is our choice today: a rule fine-tuned over 5 years with a clear 
process for future rulemaking and certainty for jobs and affordable 
energy, which we have now, or, if we follow this path, a continued 
waste of taxpayer dollars to pursue an agenda to kill coal mining.
  I choose jobs and affordable energy for American families. Please 
support H.R. 2824.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is an actual photograph of actual water coming from an actual 
mountaintop removal site. I hope that the camera captures the color of 
the green hills that used to be there and the orange water that is 
there now. A stream this orange might be good for dyeing Easter eggs 
but not for drinking.
  Now, earlier, I referred to the studies by scientists that associated 
hospitalizations with these activities. I referred to hospitalizations, 
hypertension, lung cancer, heart disease, kidney disease, increased 
flooding, loss of habitat, damage to wildlife. The other side, the 
majority, keeps wanting to talk about procedures, so let's talk about 
procedures for just a moment.

                              {time}  1330

  The record is clear. These are the words of the Federal District 
Court. The record is clear. The 2008 rule may affect or threaten 
endangered species or critical habitat. Further, the court goes on, the 
errors in this rule constitute a--in their words--serious deficiency 
and not merely a procedural defect.
  Mountaintop removal mining is a serious environmental and health 
threat in Appalachia. That is what we should be talking about today, 
not about creating legislation that will deem reality to be different 
than it actually is, that will declare this stream clear flowing, that 
will declare these mountains green and verdant, that will declare that 
the Endangered Species Act was observed when it wasn't, that will 
declare that this rule will protect the environment and human health 
when it won't.
  No amount of legislative deeming will make this reality change. What 
will make this reality change would be good, strong regulations with 
good, strong enforcement with an emphasis not on speed and cheapness 
but on people's health and an environment that can sustain us. That is 
what we should be talking about.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 4776]]


  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).
  Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I come to the floor to support H.R. 2824, the Preventing Government 
Waste and Protecting Coal Mining Jobs in America Act. I thank my 
colleagues Congressman Johnson and Chairman Doc Hastings for their hard 
work and leadership on this very important issue.
  The Obama administration has consistently put mandates ahead of jobs 
and energy security. Instead of promoting the American-made energy that 
powers our factories, small businesses, warehouses, and offices, 
Washington bureaucrats have wasted nearly $10 million to overhaul coal 
mining regulation.
  Three years ago, the Obama administration's own experts estimated 
that these unnecessary and sweeping changes could kill 7,000 jobs. The 
urge to issue mandates was too strong and, instead of listening to 
reason, the administration fired its own advisers and kept on pressing. 
That is no way to promote economic recovery.
  Mr. Chairman, today's legislation would halt the Obama 
administration's haphazard and disastrous rulemaking. Hoosiers deserve 
an all-of-the-above energy plan, not a red tape agenda. So I would urge 
my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a most thoughtful and strong 
spokesperson on protecting our environment and people's health.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy as I appreciate 
his leadership.
  Mr. Chair, there is nothing here in terms of what the administration 
has done that is ill-considered or reckless. I am sorry that there is 
opposition to protections that were put in place by the Reagan 
administration dealing with stream buffers, simple and common sense, 
which would indeed merit the support by virtually all of our 
colleagues.
  We have seen that the last-minute efforts by the Bush administration 
to circumvent protections for mountaintop removal were rejected by the 
courts because they did not deal adequately with requirements of the 
Endangered Species Act. We are still facing the specter of taking the 
debris from mountaintop removal mining and putting it in our streams 
and waterways, and we would sentence our States to not be able to put 
in place more effective and stringent protections if they wanted to but 
force them to follow this outdated and rejected proposal and wait until 
2021 to be able to move forward.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an expression, I think, of frustration on the 
part of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle for the fact 
that they are on the wrong side of history, they are on the wrong side 
of science, and they are on the wrong side of public opinion; and 
simply declaring that the administration is out of control or EPA is 
overreaching or there is a war on coal doesn't make it so.
  People can see for themselves the devastation from mountaintop 
removal and the fact that we have been negligent as a country for years 
providing adequate protections.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HOLT. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I would hope that the Chamber sees fit to reject 
legislation that is not going anyplace and that we stop the charade of 
initiatives that are conjuring up imaginary threats when we are not 
focusing on the clear and present dangers to the environment now, to 
community protection, and for health. Reject this legislation, and then 
let's get down to business on things that really will make a difference 
and that we can agree upon.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I would advise my friend 
from New Jersey I am prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to 
close.
  Mr. HOLT. I am prepared to close, as well.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The other side speaks about technicalities. Is it a technicality to 
fail to consider the negative impact on wildlife and the environment? 
Is it a technicality to ignore the harmful health effects for people 
living in communities near mining operations? Is it a technicality that 
allows us to sacrifice people's clean drinking water so that large 
mining companies can save a few dollars as they blow up a mountain?
  No. These are not technicalities. In fact, the U.S. district court a 
few weeks ago made it clear these were not technicalities. I will 
repeat, in their words: the way this was put together is a serious 
deficiency and not merely a strictly procedural defect. That is why the 
rule was vacated by the court. We should not be imposing that now. We 
should be looking after the health of our environment and the health of 
the people we were sent here to represent.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on my 
side?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, to hear my friends on the other side of the aisle argue 
about this, they are making arguments that are pre-1977. Now, why do I 
say that? Because they are talking about their perception of 
mountaintop mining or surface mining probably in general. Well, it is 
precisely that argument that led to the Surface Mining Control and 
Reclamation Act of 1977 under the Carter administration--with a 
Democrat Congress, I might add. So that bill passed to allow for 
surface mining.
  Now, there is always necessary rulemaking that comes after that, and 
the latest rulemaking prior to the turn of this century was in 1983 
under the Reagan administration. So the Bush administration looked 
because of some court test that maybe we ought to rewrite this rule; 
and, Mr. Chairman, contrary to what my friends on the other side of the 
aisle said that that was a late-breaking rule, it took 5 years to put 
that together--5 years to put that together.
  So, as a result, because of this court decision that ended up 
vacating because of the technicality of the 2008 rule, the issue before 
us is this: Do we put the 2008 rule in place, which is what the focus 
of this legislation is, and then look forward to further rulemaking, or 
do we vacate the 2008 rule and go back to 1983? That is what the choice 
is.
  What I find that is so interesting about my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle is that everybody acknowledges that the 2008 rule is 
more restrictive--more restrictive--but they want to go back to the 
1983 rule. I find that hard to understand, but at least that is what 
appears to be their argument.
  So, Mr. Chairman, we think the responsible way to do this is to take 
into consideration what the Bush administration did for 5 years, 
looking at proper rulemaking that, by the way, looked into the 
Endangered Species Act. That is something the '83 rule did not look at 
at all. So we think that is a better way to put that in place right 
now. It is a more restrictive rule that industry understands, the 
States understand, and it is probably better for energy certainty in 
this country.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2824, 
the so-called ``Preventing Government Waste and Protecting Coal Mining 
Jobs in America Act.''
  I oppose the bill because it would misdirect limited resources and 
limit State discretion in regulating industries within their borders.
  The bill would require State surface coal mining regulatory agencies 
to implement the discredited 2008 Stream Buffer Zone Rule--promulgated 
by the Bush Administration--for a mandatory implementation period, 
which inadequately protects drinking water and watersheds from strip 
mining.
  H.R. 2824 replaces sensible Reagan-era protections for streams and 
communities in Appalachia from mountaintop mining with the

[[Page 4777]]

flawed 2008 Bush rule that has been rejected by a federal court, most 
states, and the Administration.
  The bill puts families at risk by stopping the current updating of 
federal rules, wasting time and money, while delaying development of a 
responsible stream protection rule for years.
  The bill allows big coal companies--many of whom export their coal--
to reap larger profits, while families in Appalachia pay the price 
through with degraded water, flooding, and health impacts.
  In opposing this misguided legislation I stand with a broad range of 
conservation and environmental groups, including American Rivers, 
Environment America, Clean Water Action, League of Conservation Voters, 
National Parks Conservation Association, Natural Resources Defense 
Council, National Wildlife Federation, and Sierra Club.
  Mr. Chair, waste from mountaintop removal coal mining has buried over 
2,000 miles of streams throughout Appalachia. This practice destroys 
wildlife habitat, contaminates surface and drinking water, and leads to 
flooding.
  As a number of new studies show, there is an increased incidence of 
cancer, birth defects, lung disease, and heart disease for those living 
and working near these mines.
  In December 2008, the Bush Administration finalized a last-minute 
rule that weakened Reagan-era protections for streams from the impacts 
of mountaintop removal mining. The Bush rule was challenged in court 
and in February 2014, the D.C. Circuit Court vacated the rule, finding 
that the Bush Administration's refusal to consider the impacts of 
stream fills on threatened or endangered species in drafting the rule 
had been illegal.
  The bill before us seeks to write the midnight Bush rule into law and 
require all states to incorporate it into their state mining 
regulations.
  Mr. Chair, it makes no sense to require the states to adopt a vacated 
rule that has already been vacated by a federal court, especially when 
the Obama Administration is in the process of finalizing a new stream 
protection rule providing for responsible development while protecting 
our communities and environment.
  This new rule will reflect the significant technological and 
scientific advances in mining practices that avoid, minimize, and 
mitigate environmental damage from coal mining.
  Mr. Chair, I support the amendment offered by Congressman Lowenthal 
that would keep in place implementation of the Reagan Administration 
rule. I also support the amendment offered by Congressman Cartwright 
that would ensure that states retain the ability to issue their own 
stream buffer rules.
  But I do not support the underlying bill. I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' on H.R. 2824 and reject this misguided, irresponsible, and 
harmful legislation.
  Then let us finally get to work on the issues the American people 
care about.
  The 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, an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 113-41, 
modified by the amendment printed in part A of House Report 113-374. 
That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as 
read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 2824

       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 ``Preventing Government Waste 
     and Protecting Coal Mining Jobs in America''.

     SEC. 2. INCORPORATION OF SURFACE MINING STREAM BUFFER ZONE 
                   RULE INTO STATE PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--Section 503 of the Surface Mining Control 
     and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1253) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Stream Buffer Zone Management.--
       ``(1) In general.--In addition to the requirements under 
     subsection (a), each State program shall incorporate the 
     necessary rule regarding excess spoil, coal mine waste, and 
     buffers for perennial and intermittent streams published by 
     the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement on 
     December 12, 2008 (73 Fed. Reg. 75813 et seq.) which complies 
     with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
     seq.) in view of the 2006 discussions between the Director of 
     the Office of Surface Mining and the Director of the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Office of Surface 
     Mining Reclamation and Enforcement's consideration and review 
     of comments submitted by the United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service during the rulemaking process in 2007''.
       ``(2) Study of implementation.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(A) at such time as the Secretary determines all States 
     referred to in subsection (a) have fully incorporated the 
     necessary rule referred to in paragraph (1) of this 
     subsection into their State programs, publish notice of such 
     determination;
       ``(B) during the 5-year period beginning on the date of 
     such publication, assess the effectiveness of implementation 
     of such rule by such States;
       ``(C) carry out all required consultation on the benefits 
     and other impacts of the implementation of the rule to any 
     threatened species or endangered species, with the 
     participation of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 
     and the United States Geological Survey; and
       ``(D) upon the conclusion of such period, submit a 
     comprehensive report on the impacts of such rule to the 
     Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate, including--
       ``(i) an evaluation of the effectiveness of such rule;
       ``(ii) an evaluation of any ways in which the existing rule 
     inhibits energy production; and
       ``(iii) a description in detail of any proposed changes 
     that should be made to the rule, the justification for such 
     changes, all comments on such changes received by the 
     Secretary from such States, and the projected costs and 
     benefits of such changes.
       ``(3) Limitation on new regulations.--The Secretary may not 
     issue any regulations under this Act relating to stream 
     buffer zones or stream protection before the date of the 
     publication of the report under paragraph (2), other than a 
     rule necessary to implement paragraph (1).''.
       (b) Deadline for State Implementation.--Not later than 2 
     years after the date of the enactment of this Act, a State 
     with a State program approved under section 503 of the 
     Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 
     1253) shall submit to the Secretary of the Interior 
     amendments to such program pursuant to part 732 of title 30, 
     Code of Federal Regulations, incorporating the necessary rule 
     referred to in subsection (e)(1) of such section, as amended 
     by this section.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B of the 
report. 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. Lowenthal

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part B of House Report 113-374.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 1, beginning at line 16, strike ``December 12, 2008 
     (73 Fed. Reg. 75813 et seq.)'' and insert ``June 30, 1983 (48 
     Fed. Reg. 30312), except that this paragraph shall not apply 
     to a State if the Governor of the State notifies the 
     Secretary that such application would reduce stream 
     protection from the level of protection achieved by the State 
     program as in effect on the date of the enactment of the 
     Preventing Government Waste and Protecting Coal Mining Jobs 
     in America''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 501, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lowenthal) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I my 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is about protecting the health of those 
Americans who live near mountaintop removal coal mines. It is about 
keeping surface water from being contaminated; it is about keeping 
drinking water from being contaminated; and my amendment is about 
reducing the risk of cancer, birth defects, lung disease, and heart 
disease for families living near coal mines.
  Mr. Chairman, all of these health problems have been conclusively 
linked to the mining practices of dumping the tops of mountains into 
streambeds. For example, in January 2010, the peer-reviewed journal 
Science published an article, entitled, ``Mountaintop Mining 
Consequences.'' And in that article, the authors, who were a dozen 
scientists from institutions across the country, concluded:


[[Page 4778]]

       Adult hospitalizations for chronic pulmonary disorder and 
     hypertension are elevated as a result of county-level coal 
     production, as are rates of mortality, lung cancer, and 
     chronic heart, lung, and kidney disease.

  Health problems are for women and men. So the effects are not simply 
the result of direct occupational exposure of predominantly male coal 
miners.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1983, the Ronald Reagan administration completed 
rules that kept coal mining companies from dumping their overburden 
directly into streams. The rules required a buffer of 100 feet around 
waterways. The Reagan rule also allowed States to promulgate more 
protective rules, effectively creating a Federal floor of protection 
against stream contamination.
  Right now, the Reagan rule is the regulation that the Office of 
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement is operating under, and my 
amendment would keep the Reagan rule in effect.
  So what does the majority bill do? It wipes away the Reagan rule and 
forces all States to adopt the 2008 Bush stream buffer rule. Instead of 
protecting streams, the Bush rule is a blank check for mining companies 
to dump their overburden directly into waterways. That's right. The 
Bush rule referenced in this bill has a gaping loophole that allows 
mining companies to dump mine waste into streams if avoiding 
disturbance of the stream is not reasonably possible.
  And how is ``reasonable'' to be interpreted by the agency? Very 
loosely. An alternative to dumping mine waste into streams generally 
may be considered unreasonable, according to the agency, if its cost is 
substantially greater than the cost normally associated with this type 
of project.
  Well, of course it is cheaper to dump mine waste into a nearby 
streambed than to properly treat and remove it elsewhere. Thus, given 
the agency's criteria, it will always be found cheaper and reasonable 
to dump coal mine waste into streams.
  But it gets even better, Mr. Chairman. This is the same Bush rule 
that was struck down by the D.C. circuit court just this last month, 
and it is the same Bush rule that is really against the States' ability 
to promulgate stronger rules because it creates a ceiling that no State 
can exceed.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would simply return to the Reagan rule to 
protect the health of families living near coal mines. I urge support 
of my amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  I find it hard sometimes to listen to this debate, especially when I 
hear my good friends on the other side of the aisle defending anything 
that the Reagan administration did. But they are doing it, so I will 
acknowledge that there is some substance there, but let me just go back 
to what I mentioned in my closing arguments.
  SMCRA was passed in 1977. The Reagan rulemaking was 6 years after 
that. So there has not been an update on that rule--right now--for 30 
years, but it was more likely probably 20 years when the Bush 
administration thought it should be updated.
  Now I want to get right to the heart of the matter and the reason 
that the environmental community does not like the 2008 rule and 
instead opts for the 1983 Reagan rule. They don't like it because the 
2008 rule will provide clarity and certainty in the SMCRA process, 
which of course will free up job creation, meaning that there is going 
to be some certainty in coal production; rather, the environmental 
community would like to use loopholes that they found in the 1983 
rulemaking to take people to court.
  That is exactly why, from my perspective, that this amendment is 
offered, to go back to the Reagan times so there can be probably more 
litigation and less certainty in rulemaking of surface mining.
  The gentleman mentioned, for example the 100-foot buffer zone. The 
Bush rule has a 100-foot buffer zone just like the Reagan rule. Nothing 
changed there. The only change in the long run in rulemaking is 
certainty, and those who like to go to court don't like certainty. That 
is why I believe we have this improbable defense of anything that 
Reagan did, because they see that over a period of time there are ways 
that you can manipulate that to their advantage.
  I think the Bush rule--which I said several times and is even 
acknowledged by the coal mining industry that it is more restrictive 
but has more certainty in it--is a better model, and it is precisely 
what this legislation does. It takes us to the 2008 rule.
  This amendment takes us back to the 1983 rule, and I don't think that 
is a proper way to go. I urge rejection of this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I want to respond to one thing that was just said. The 2008 
Bush rule is not more protective than the 1983 Reagan rule. I have 
explained that. The 2008 Bush rule has huge exemptions within it, and 
that is why it is important that we go back and we adopt my amendment 
to take us back to the reasonable 1983 Reagan rule.
  I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Cartwright).
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California 
for yielding.
  I rise in support of the amendment by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Lowenthal) which seeks to reinstate the 1983 Stream Buffer Rule. 
While the Reagan administration rule is not perfect, the 2008 Bush rule 
inserted unnecessary loopholes in the law and takes us in the wrong 
direction.
  This commonsense Lowenthal amendment from the Natural Resources 
Committee would simply keep the best option we currently have in place 
instead of forcing the adoption of the 2008 rule, which the courts have 
already struck down. Thus, I urge my colleagues to support the 
Lowenthal amendment.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Very briefly, and maybe we are caught here in semantics, but the 
issue--I have said several times and it has been acknowledged that the 
2008 rule is more restrictive. My friend on the other side of the aisle 
and the author of the amendment said, ``Let me be clear, the 2008 rule 
is not as protective.''
  I think when we are talking about protecting the environment, that 
``restrictive'' and ``protective'' are probably synonymous in nature. 
So when we hear statements made by the industry that the 2008 rule is 
more restrictive, I take them at their word.
  But, Mr. Chairman, I have to make this point and this point is very 
important because we need to have a certain supply of energy in this 
country if we are going to have a growing economy. I am in favor of all 
of the above, and that certainly includes coal. Unless you have 
certainty in the regulations, you will not have an energy source.
  As I have said right from the start--and as a matter of fact, many 
have acknowledged within the administration that this administration 
has a war on coal--this provides certainty. It is contrary to where the 
administration obviously wants to go because it does provide certainty 
with our energy production. So I would urge rejection of this 
amendment, which would take us back to a rule that would be more 
potentially litigious in nature to something that has certainty. With 
that, I urge rejection of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lowenthal).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the

[[Page 4779]]

amendment offered by the gentleman from California will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Cartwright

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
part B of House Report 113-374.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 1, line 17, before the last period insert ``, except 
     that this subsection shall not apply to a State if, upon 
     request from the Governor of the State, the Secretary finds 
     that the State's existing program exceeds the standards 
     established by such rule regarding excess spoil, coal mine 
     waste, and buffers for perennial and intermittent streams''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 501, 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. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The underlying bill I seek to amend has been labeled today as 
Preventing Government Waste and Protecting Coal Mining Jobs in America. 
The true label for this bill ought to be the ``No Streams Protection'' 
bill.
  Mountaintop removal coal mining is a process that has buried over 
2,000 miles of streams throughout Appalachia, contaminating surface and 
drinking water, and destroying wildlife in Appalachia communities.
  The practice is currently governed by a rule written by the Reagan 
administration. The Reagan rule needs to be updated, and this is what 
the Obama administration wants to set about doing. H.R. 2824 seeks to 
accomplish two things: to write into statute a stream buffer rule 
promulgated in December of 2008 by the Bush administration and then to 
prohibit the Obama administration from working on writing a new stream 
buffer rule for at least 5 years while precluding the States also from 
issuing their own more stringent rules.
  Members ought to be aware that the Federal District Court of the 
District of Columbia handed down a decision on February 20, just last 
month, vacating the 2008 rule because the Bush administration refused 
to consider the impacts of coal mining on threatened or endangered 
species in writing the rule. As a result, the rule this bill would 
write into statute no longer exists.
  It is also surprising that the Republicans would enact a bill that 
strong-arms States into forcibly adopting a Federal standard, 
completely preempting states' rights to enact their own rules.
  That is why the amendment I am offering today protects states' rights 
by ensuring that all States are able to implement a stream buffer rule 
that can go beyond the national floor. States ought to have the ability 
to protect their natural resources at a level beyond the requirements 
of the Federal Government when they see that need. My amendment ensures 
that States maintain the ability to issue their own more stringent 
stream buffer rules, which this legislation is attempting to prohibit.
  States should be able to maintain the ability to adequately protect 
their natural resources and health and safety of their local coal 
mining communities. Safe drinking water should be a right for 
everybody, and should not be subject to the Federal loopholes this bill 
would insert. States should have the right to close loopholes as they 
see fit.
  It is important to remember that the amount of coal exported from 
this country is significant and growing. In fact, a record amount of 
coal was exported in 2012, over three times the amount exported one 
decade earlier. We don't need to relax our environmental and health 
protections for this industry. We don't need to jeopardize the health 
of the people and the once-pristine environment of Appalachia for the 
profits of these companies.
  Finally, the claim that the Obama rule must be stopped because it is 
part of a so-called war on coal is obviously false. How can you make 
such a claim about a rule that doesn't even exist yet?
  This bill is simply an attempt to resurrect a flawed 2008 Bush rule, 
rejected by a Federal court and the administration, which provides 
loopholes to the industry. It is poor public policy and a poor use of 
Congress' time given the pressing needs of this country.
  My amendment protects states' rights from overreach by the Federal 
Government, protects Appalachia communities, protects our environment, 
and protects clean drinking water. My amendment allows States to do 
better by their citizens if they so choose, and I believe that is a 
goal that everybody ought to agree upon.
  I urge Members to vote for this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lowenthal).
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding 
me this time.
  I strongly agree with my friend that States must be given the right 
to implement a stream buffer rule that works for them, given the fact 
that local conditions will vary from State to State. What we are saying 
is that States should have the ability to protect their natural 
resources at a level beyond the requirements of the Federal Government 
when they see the need. What we are saying is that the Federal 
Government sets a floor, and the States have a right to protect their 
citizens from public health crisis and illness by setting their own 
requirements.
  H.R. 2824 keeps the States from tailoring stream safeguards and 
requires the States to waste taxpayer dollars by adopting a rule that 
has been vacated by a Federal court.
  Mr. Chairman, for these reasons I urge support of the Cartwright 
amendment.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, before I speak directly as 
to why we should not adopt this amendment, let me respond to the 
rhetorical question that my friend from Pennsylvania asked when he 
said:
  How can you say that this administration rule, which hasn't been 
promulgated yet, will cost jobs?
  Well, I would tell the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, that there were 
leaked documents of the first initial rewrite of the 2008 amendment, 
leaked documents that said that the contractor that was hired by the 
administration to rewrite the rule came back with the conclusion that 
7,000 jobs would be lost in 22 States. So what was the response of the 
Obama administration? They fired the contractor; it was the wrong 
message.
  Now they are still in the rulemaking process. But, Mr. Chairman, I 
have to tell you, I doubt that the philosophy has changed from that 
very way because they are trying to manipulate which rules to follow to 
minimize what we found out in the initial go-round.
  So let me just talk about this amendment. This amendment is not only 
unnecessary, it is actually harmful to protecting states' rights. Under 
SMCRA of 1977, State regulations have to meet or exceed the new 
regulation issued by the Office of Surface Mining. The gentleman's 
amendment would eliminate the ability of States to meet these rules by 
mandating that States can only exceed the OSM rules. This ignores both 
the history of Federal-State regulations with regard to rulemaking but 
also the need for flexibility in the States to meet the OSM rules while 
protecting their own geology, hydrology, and community interests.
  Again, States already have the ability to change regulations to meet 
or exceed Federal rules with regards to all aspects of the regulatory 
regime under SMCRA.

                              {time}  1400

  We should not limit the ability to have flexibility in meeting the 
new rules. This amendment would mandate that you could only change that 
by increasing it. I think, Mr. Chairman,

[[Page 4780]]

that is the wrong way to go. I think the amendment is ill-advised.
  I urge rejection of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania will be 
postponed.


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report 113-374 on 
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Lowenthal of California.
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Cartwright of Pennsylvania.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Lowenthal

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188, 
noes 231, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 138]

                               AYES--188

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

                               NOES--231

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

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Benishek
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cohen
     Duckworth
     Hinojosa
     Jackson Lee
     Johnson (GA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Olson
     Schwartz

                              {time}  1427

  Messrs. TERRY, CULBERSON, and COLE changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Messrs. MAFFEI and LARSON of Connecticut changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Cartwright

  The CHAIR. 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 CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 196, 
noes 225, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 139]

                               AYES--196

     Barber
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)

[[Page 4781]]


     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--225

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

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Benishek
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cassidy
     Duckworth
     Hinojosa
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Olson
     Schwartz

                              {time}  1435

  Mr. WALBERG changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 139, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the 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. Poe 
of Texas) having assumed the chair, Mr. Woodall, 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. 2824) to amend 
the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to stop the 
ongoing waste by the Department of the Interior of taxpayer resources 
and implement the final rule on excess spoil, mining waste, and buffers 
for perennial and intermittent streams, and for other purposes, and, 
pursuant to House Resolution 501, 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.
  The question is on the 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. BERA of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at 
the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. BERA of California. I am opposed to it in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Bera of California moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2824 
     to the Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendment:
       Page 3, after line 20, add the following:

     SEC. __. MAKING IT IN AMERICA AND PROVIDING JOBS FOR 
                   UNEMPLOYED WORKERS.

       Nothing in this Act limits, restricts, or prohibits the 
     Secretary of the Interior or any State program from giving 
     priority to--
       (1) hiring unemployed workers, including veterans, who are 
     actively seeking work and for whom unemployment taxes were 
     paid during prior employment; and
       (2) utilizing equipment and materials manufactured in the 
     United States in mining operations, where practicable.

  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BERA of California. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to 
the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to the 
committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final 
passage as amended.
  Mr. Speaker, instead of voting on divisive bills that threaten 
communities and their water supply with toxic mining waste, we need to 
focus on creating jobs and getting unemployed Americans back to work.
  Mr. Speaker, we have no more urgent mission than getting our veterans 
back to work. That is our priority. American families want their 
leaders to work together, Democrats and Republicans, to rebuild an 
economy that works for the middle class, not more partisan politics.
  Today, over 2 million unemployed Americans have been waiting for 
Congress to restore Federal emergency unemployment benefits since 
December.
  Among veterans who have served since 2001, the unemployment rate is 9 
percent. This is disgraceful. During these tough economic times 
Americans need to focus and Congress needs to focus on getting 
Americans back to work.
  This amendment would do just that, allowing priority hiring of 
veterans and those who have received unemployment insurance. To help 
create more jobs, we also need to make more products here in the United 
States. There is

[[Page 4782]]

a greater opportunity for our people to make it in America if we make 
things in America.
  That means we need to focus on creating the best conditions for 
American businesses to manufacture their products, to innovate, and to 
create jobs right here in the United States.
  Already, more and more U.S. companies are bringing overseas 
manufacturing back home. Let's continue to encourage these U.S. 
companies to continue to bring those jobs back here and to build things 
here in America. We have seen the American auto industry come back, 
Apple computers, alternative energy companies, just to name a few. We 
need to continue to encourage these companies to make their products 
here.

                              {time}  1445

  That is exactly what this amendment does, and it will help set us on 
a solid path forward to a future of greater economic competitiveness, 
more jobs, and longstanding, long-term economic success.
  Let's show the American people what our priorities are. It is about 
creating jobs and getting Americans back to work and, most importantly, 
getting our veterans back to work. That is exactly what this amendment 
does.
  I urge the adoption of this important amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, this is simple. There are two 
competing views on the floor right now about the future of America.
  One side believes that the key to America remaining the leader of the 
free world starts with a robust American economy, led by a strong and 
stable energy market; an America that then leverages a healthy economy 
and a strong energy market to help allies across the globe like 
Ukraine, Japan, and others; an America that can go toe-to-toe with the 
Russians as they leverage their energy resources to try and achieve 
their political ambitions; an America that creates energy jobs here at 
home in a way that balances the dual needs of a vibrant economy and a 
healthy environment.
  Now, that other competing view would rather see American 
manufacturers and hardworking middle class families pay more for their 
electricity.
  Mr. Speaker, that is not fair. The other side talks a big game about 
being for an all-of-the-above energy policy, but at every turn, it 
tries to shut down our fossil fuel production and use.
  The other side would rather shut down our cheapest and most reliable 
form of energy and the thousands of jobs that go with it, in favor of 
taxpayer-subsidized windmills to heat our homes on cold days like 
today.
  The other side's apparent unwillingness to leverage America's energy 
abundance to influence geopolitics is unwise. America's rivals and 
adversaries are watching.
  Mr. Speaker, like I said, this is simple. What side of the coin do we 
want to stand on? The one that shoots ourself in the foot or the one 
that embraces our God-given energy advantage and leads?
  To me, the choice is clear. I urge all of my colleagues to vote 
against this motion and to vote for final passage.
  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. BERA of California. 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 agreeing to the 
Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 197, 
noes 224, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 140]

                               AYES--197

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

                               NOES--224

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

[[Page 4783]]


     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Benishek
     Camp
     Campbell
     Duckworth
     Hinojosa
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Olson
     Schock
     Schwartz

                              {time}  1454

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

                          ____________________