[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 1423-1433]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 38, DISAPPROVING A RULE 
              SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 70 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 70

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. 
     Res. 38) disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of 
     the Interior known as the Stream Protection Rule. All points 
     of order against consideration of the joint resolution are 
     waived. The joint resolution shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against provisions in the joint resolution 
     are waived. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the joint resolution and on any amendment thereto 
     to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) One 
     hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural 
     Resources; and (2) one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman and my good friend from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, just yesterday, the House Rules 
Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 70, providing for 
the consideration of H.J. Res. 38, legislation utilizing the 
Congressional Review Act to overturn the final stream protection rule 
promulgated by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 
Enforcement, or the OSMRE, which is at the Department of the Interior. 
The rule provides for consideration of the joint resolution under a 
closed rule, as is customary with these CRA measures.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of a critical 
measure that will help protect American businesses and families from 
the Obama administration's rampant regulatory overreach. H.J. Res. 38 
disapproves of the final stream protection rule which was released by 
the Department of the Interior on December 19, 2016, representing yet 
another last-minute, midnight regulation from the previous 
administration.
  This burdensome rule seeks to govern the interaction between surface 
mining operations and streams by establishing a buffer-zone rule that 
blocks mining within 100 feet of those streams. This was done, despite 
the Department of the Interior's own reports, which shows that 
virtually all coal mines in this country have no offsite impacts, they 
are being operated safely, and that lands are being restored 
successfully under existing Federal and State regulation.
  During the rulemaking process, OSMRE and the Department of the 
Interior ignored existing regulatory success at the Federal and the 
State level and shut out the cooperating agencies, the States who are 
responsible for enforcing Federal mining regulations.
  In 2015, 9 of the 10 cooperating States withdrew as cooperating 
agencies in the rulemaking and development process, due to OSMRE's 
exclusionary tactics, failure to provide for meaningful participation, 
and continual limiting of the States' involvement over the past several 
years.
  The National Environmental Policy Act or, as we know it as, NEPA, 
requires OSMRE, as the lead rulemaking

[[Page 1424]]

agency, to involve States in the drafting of the regulation and 
requires them to involve States. These failures, and the restrictive 
tactics that were employed by OSMRE, led the House Natural Resources 
Committee chairman, Mr. Rob Bishop of Utah, to send a letter in 2015 to 
the GAO, the Government Accountability Office, requesting a review of 
OSMRE's compliance with NEPA in the agencies' development and drafting 
of the proposed stream protection rule. Ample evidence exists that 
OSMRE excluded these States from the NEPA process, in contradiction of 
both NEPA regulations and the memoranda of understanding between OSMRE 
and the States.
  Mr. Speaker, the stream protection rule unilaterally rewrites over 
400 existing rules and regulations. It threatens over one-third of the 
Nation's coal mining workforce and will send repercussions throughout 
the broader U.S. economy. The final rule is the definition of a one-
size-fits-all solution due to OSMRE's failure to conduct the 7-year 
rewrite in a transparent process consistent with their statutory 
requirements to engage State and local stakeholders.
  An economic analysis conducted by the National Mining Association 
found that the total number of jobs at risk of loss is somewhere 
between 112,000 and 280,000 people, approximately 30 to 75 percent of 
the current industry employment levels.
  Further, the misguided regulation would jeopardize 40,000 to 77,000 
jobs in both surface and underground mining operations, industries that 
are still reeling from 8 years of overregulation from the previous 
administration.
  And while the Obama administration never seemed to mind the 
consequences of its actions on hardworking Americans, I can assure you 
that the new, unified Republican government is opposed to ineffective 
regulations like this one which unnecessarily put people out of work, 
raise energy costs on consumers, and do nothing to improve the 
environment.
  By passing this rule, we have the opportunity to consider a 
resolution that will prevent this regulation from removing over one-
half of the total U.S. coal reserves available for extraction, while 
also reducing oppressive barriers to responsible coal production.
  The Congressional Review Act of 1996 was enacted to be a powerful 
tool to allow Congress to overturn last-minute regulations from the 
previous administration, under an expedited legislative process. If 
Congress passes a joint resolution disapproving the rule, and the 
resolution becomes a law, the rule cannot take effect or continue. CRAs 
are designed to address and invalidate problematic rules from the 
previous administration, and the stream protection rule clearly fits 
the bill.
  Furthermore, this CRA provides certainty to State regulatory bodies 
tasked with regulating 97 percent of the coal mines in the United 
States and enforcing Federal mining regulations by strengthening the 
State primacy framework provided in the Surface Mining Control and 
Reclamation Act.
  Blocking the final stream protection rule will restore an important 
stream of State and Federal tax revenue associated with coal extraction 
across the country that is benefiting hardworking American taxpayers.
  Mr. Speaker, every Member of this body wants to protect the 
environment, ensure clean water and clean air for our citizens, and 
encourage innovative and responsible ways to produce energy. However, 
these goals are not mutually exclusive, as some opponents of this 
legislation will argue.
  It is past time that we embrace commonsense, practical Federal rules 
and regulations that protect the environment and the countless 
Americans working in the industries that support our economy and 
provide for greater domestic energy independence.
  The rule we consider here today provides for the consideration of a 
bill that is critically important to the future economic growth and job 
growth of our country. By passing this CRA, we can take a badly needed 
step toward protecting American families and businesses from the 
rampant executive overreach that will be the defining achievement of 
the past administration.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule, as well as the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Washington, for yielding 
me the customary 30 minutes for debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate the rule for consideration of a 
joint resolution disapproving of a Department of the Interior 
regulation known as the stream protection rule.
  Through this action, my Republican colleagues are now attempting to 
repeal a thoughtful and thoroughly vetted regulation that reflects 
current science, technology, and mining practices in order to better 
protect people and the environment from the negative impacts of 
mountaintop removal mining. This regulation took 7 years to develop and 
updates a 30-year-old coal mining regulation.
  This regulation is not, as we have seen coming out of the 
administration of late, some fly-by-night executive order, but rather a 
serious attempt by serious people to make us a healthier and more 
environmentally conscious nation.
  However, what we see here today is business as usual for the 
Republican majority--turning a blind eye to science in order to help 
wealthy polluters at the expense of the public's health and the 
environment. Just because my friends' unending attempts to normalize 
such misguided governance have become almost numbing in their effect 
does not make such attempts any less appalling to those of us who 
believe in the scientific method and a clean and safe environment.
  Indeed, the paucity of care that we see here today in ridding the 
books of a regulation that hardworking and good people took 7 years to 
write with, mind you, input from all stakeholders, is starting to look 
like a variation of a theme when we consider the paucity of care the 
Republicans in the White House have exhibited over the past 10 days.
  As everyone knows, last Friday, President Trump issued an executive 
order banning Muslims from certain countries from entering the United 
States and callously shutting down the refugee program. What ensued, 
and I predict will continue to ensue as we speak here today, was 
nothing short of chaos. Scores and scores of people were detained for 
hours, including green card holders, children, the elderly, and even 
Iraqi translators who had helped the United States during the 
insurgency.
  Equally as horrifying as this Muslim ban that is the antithesis of 
everything we value as Americans is the ineptitude in which such a 
sweeping policy was implemented. Relevant agencies were not even 
consulted. In fact, Homeland Security Secretary Kelly, found out about 
the executive order on the phone while on a Coast Guard plane heading 
back to Washington. Secretary Mattis was also left off the list of 
those consulted. Had he been on it, he would have almost certainly 
expressed the sentiment he expressed during the campaign, mainly that 
the Muslim ban would cause great damage and send shock waves through 
the international community.
  Like Ms. Eshoo, who spoke earlier, I am a veteran of the Intelligence 
Committee as well. We serve there together. I can assure you our 
experience leads us to know--and anyone that is on the Intelligence 
Committee knows now--that what we are about to experience is a handout 
to our enemies and will cause additional shock waves in the 
international community.
  The result of this amateur hour rollout was a Customs and Border 
Patrol agency that wasn't sure how to even execute the order. From 
management on down, no one knew what was going on while scores of 
people were riddled with fear that their realization of a free and fair 
life here in the United States was lost forever. People with visas and 
green cards were held for

[[Page 1425]]

hours. Will someone please tell me what it means to issue a visa to 
persons if they cannot utilize the visa?
  People were denied access to a lawyer even after a Federal Court 
order stayed the executive action.
  Here is a small sampling of the immediate impact of this Muslim ban: 
A 5-year-old boy, a U.S. citizen, was detained for several hours. 5 
years old--a truer threat to our national security we have never faced. 
An 88-year-old man and his 83-year-old wife, both wheelchair bound and 
both possessing green cards, were detained for hours. He is legally 
blind, and she recently suffered a stroke--detained for hours.
  A Ph.D. student at Stony Brook University, who has lived in the 
United States for 12 years, was detained for more than 24 hours. The 
mother of an Active Duty United States servicemember was detained for 
more than 30 hours.
  Tell me, what danger do these people pose? What security objective is 
achieved by detaining them?
  I argue none.
  I have to agree with Senator Rob Portman when he said what was so 
plainly obvious to see: ``This was an extreme vetting program that 
wasn't properly vetted.''
  As thousands arrived at airports across the country to protest the 
President's executive order and hundreds of lawyers showed up to 
volunteer their time to write habeas petitions for those so clearly 
wrongfully detained, President Trump, living in a world all his own, 
tweeted the following: ``All is going well with very few problems.''
  All is not going well, Mr. President, and there are many problems.
  Then he defended the hastily implemented order saying that: ``If the 
ban were announced with a one week notice, the `bad' would rush into 
our country during that week. A lot of bad `dudes' out there!''
  This is a stunningly ignorant and offensive statement that reveals to 
the entire world a person with no grasp of even what the refugee 
program is or how the visa process works.
  Immediately preceding this tweet, the President advised everyone to: 
``Study the world!''
  I encourage him to take his own advice.
  Beyond the human toll this foolish and callous policy has inflicted 
on scores of innocent people, the executive order actually undermines 
our efforts to defeat terrorism--jeopardizing the very safety the order 
purports to provide. The chairman of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, headed by John McCain, along with Senator Lindsey Graham, 
underscored this irony, and I quote their joint statement: ``We fear 
this executive order will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight 
against terrorism,'' noting further that President Trump's executive 
order ``may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our 
security.''
  So I find it interesting now that the majority of my Republican 
colleagues in the House, even the ones that voiced opposition to a 
Muslim ban during the campaign when then-President-elect Trump first 
proposed it, including our Speaker of the House, are now deafeningly 
silent.
  Instead, Republicans are using their time today not to respond to 
this chaos-inducing executive order that so clearly violates core 
American values, but rather to repeal a rule that was actually properly 
vetted--vetted for 7 years, using the best science and technology 
available, and following input from the public and leaders in the 
industry. I caution my friends, the events of today and how you respond 
to them will be written in the history books tomorrow.
  A question emerges from the fog that is the Trump administration's 
full frontal attack on our Constitution: What is more important, 
appeasing a man who is just as likely to tweet insults at you as he is 
to rush out ill-conceived and horrid executive orders, or protecting 
our Constitution and the ideals of this great Nation?
  The ideals and dedication to the rule of law that have inspired the 
poor, the tired, and the huddled masses to seek a better and freer life 
here in the United States. It didn't begin with Muslims. It began with 
the Founders of this country, and it was followed by countless others, 
from Irish, Italians, Polish, Hungarians, Vietnamese, and Chinese, all 
over this world coming to this country to seek the kind of life that 
many of our ancestors sought over the course of time and some of our 
ancestors had no choice but to undertake.
  The time to act in the name of short-term political expediency is 
over. It is time to stand up and do what is right. It is time to 
protect our Constitution. It is time to defend the idea that we can 
indeed form a more perfect Union. But we cannot do that with the kind 
of division that is being sold by this administration, and we cannot do 
that by spending what appears to be the month of February disapproving 
executive orders that the previous President issued. It seems to me 
somehow or another in that fog is going to be the kind of confusion and 
chaos that we just witnessed this weekend.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, getting back to the issue at hand and the stream 
protection rule, there are many points that my friend from Florida 
brought up. One occurred to me as well: Is this really a midnight rule; 
or could something that was started in 2008 really be considered as 
something that was shoved through at the last minute?
  I did ask that question, and the answer is a resounding ``yes.''
  During the process in 2011, some of the reports came out that were 
leaked that the Department did not see as favorable as it related to 
jobs and the economy and the negative impact that it would have on 
that, so they stopped the process, shutting out the States violating 
the memorandum of understanding that they are required to work with the 
States on the rulemaking process leaving those States with no recourse 
but to withdraw from the process.
  In 2015, this Congress told them to reengage with the States, which 
they did to some degree, making it necessary for States to actually pay 
for the scientific evidence that was necessary for them to be engaged. 
So there are several problems that cause this to be an issue that we 
need to address today, and certainly making it a midnight rule, the 
last thing done as the administration walks out the door, qualifies 
this as something that we should be considering for many reasons and on 
many levels.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Thompson), who is my good friend.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Washington State, whom I have been proud to serve with. I had an 
opportunity to visit his district, and I know natural resources are 
extremely important to him. I appreciate his yielding on what is 
germane to this discussion, which is basically trying to claw back 
regulations that had no basis in science that essentially were causing 
harm and taking away good-paying jobs for Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the underlying 
legislation, which disapproves of a midnight regulation that the Obama 
administration made with just 1 month left in his Presidency.
  The stream protection rule negatively targets coal country and will 
devastate communities that have already been hit hard by job losses and 
reduced mining activity making sure that America has affordable and 
reliable energy and electricity.
  Pennsylvania is the fifth largest coal producing State and generates 
roughly 25 percent of its electricity from coal-fired power plants. 
Coal-fired electricity provides roughly 30,000 jobs in my State, 
equaling nearly $8 billion in economic impact.
  Although coal continues to be an essential component of our energy 
mix, this rule duplicates many existing laws while providing very 
little environmental gain. What the rule does is expands the Office of 
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement's regulatory authority. In 
effect, this Federal agency would overtake the regulatory authorities 
of individual States.

[[Page 1426]]



                              {time}  1300

  This makes no sense. States should be able to continue their own 
regulation of coal production. This is the epitome of a midnight rule 
that has more to do with empowering the Federal Government at the 
expense of coal miners' jobs than it has to do with protecting streams.
  The Office of Surface Mining's own reports show that virtually all 
coal mines have no offsite impacts. The reports year over year show 
that coal mines are being safely operated and the lands are being 
successfully restored thanks to the watchful eyes of the States that 
regulate 97 percent of the mines in the United States.
  This rule does nothing to protect our streams that State and Federal 
regulators are not already doing. We do not need a one-size-fits-all 
approach from Washington, which rarely works.
  In order to bring real-world thinking back into the regulatory 
process, we must act quickly to stop this rule. I urge my colleagues to 
join me in supporting the joint resolution of disapproval under the 
Congressional Review Act.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, both of my colleagues on the other side referred to the 
rule they seek to disapprove as a midnight rule. Well, I don't know how 
you take 7 years of midnights that it took to develop this rule and 
call it a midnight rule--7 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), my very good friend and ranking member of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly oppose H.J. Res. 
38, which would disapprove the Department of the Interior's stream 
protection rule.
  When the Obama administration announced the final stream protection 
rule, it was a victory for those who live in coal country. The rule 
prioritizes the health of our fellow Americans by establishing clear 
requirements for responsible surface coal mining, especially dangerous 
mountaintop removal mining.
  If this Obama rule were fully enforced, it would protect or restore 
6,000 miles of streams and 52,000 acres of forests over the next two 
decades. At the time the rule was finalized, I called for stronger 
stream buffer zone protections, but the announced regulation was 
undoubtedly a win for human health, clean water, and our environment.
  I want to be very clear about what the stream protection rule does. 
This rule requires that mining companies avoid practices that 
permanently pollute streams and sources of drinking water, damage 
forests, and increase flood risks. The rule requires, for the first 
time, that streams around mining sites be monitored and tested for the 
presence of toxic chemicals, like lead and arsenic. This rule also 
requires mining companies to restore polluted streams and replant mined 
areas with native trees and vegetation.
  These provisions ensure that mining companies take responsibility for 
their actions and act to ensure that coal country communities do not 
suffer because of destructive mining practices. Now we are debating an 
ill-conceived resolution which would negate these important advances.
  If this rule were to be overturned, American families living near 
impacted streams and rivers will not be protected from toxic chemicals 
getting into their water. What is even more appalling is that, because 
the Congressional Review Act prevents substantially similar regulations 
from being developed in the future, this joint resolution means that 
these affected communities might never be protected from the impacts of 
mining waste in their water.
  Protecting our rivers and streams from the damaging impacts of 
mountaintop removal has been a priority for me, and it is why in past 
Congresses I have introduced the Clean Water Protection Act, which 
would end the dumping of mining waste into our country's rivers and 
streams. I will be reintroducing that legislation this session.
  It is unfathomable that congressional Republicans would pass this 
joint resolution and doom generations of children and families to 
irreparable harm. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this 
resolution.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  It is interesting to me that my colleagues on the other side take 
offense to this being referred to as a midnight rule. This is actually 
a midnight rule twice. Let's look at how this thing started.
  In 2005, during the Bush administration, 5 years of effort went into 
codifying how coal mining operations should take place around streams. 
The last President announced, during his campaign, that he was going to 
make coal-fired energy financially, economically impossible, thereby 
launching his war on coal. There was a lawsuit with the Bush-era rule. 
The Interior Department and the administration settled, paying that 
settlement out of taxpayer dollars and then launching an effort to 
rewrite that rule.
  In 2011 when we came in, they were planning to release that rule in 
April of 2011. What took 5 years to codify, they wanted to redo in just 
4 months. Not only that, but they left the States out of the equation. 
The States complained about that. No one in the administration was 
listening.
  When the contractors then told the truth about how many tens of 
thousands of jobs were going to be lost as a result of this rule, the 
administration fired the contractor that was doing the work. Not only 
that, they paid them in full. Now, go figure.
  We have been back and forth with the administration asking that the 
States be involved, asking that the rulemaking process be transparent, 
asking, if it really had to do with stream protection, why was it 
talking about and why was it going to be negatively impacting 
underground coal mining that takes place hundreds, if not thousands, of 
feet below the surface of the Earth. You answer me that.
  So, here we are today, and now we have the Congressional Review Act. 
I am so grateful that we have the opportunity to set the record 
straight and to do away with this rule now and forever.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 38 when it comes to the 
floor this week.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, President Trump's xenophobic executive order banning 
Syrian refugees and suspending emigration from certain countries is 
driven by fear. It demonstrates a callous indifference to human 
suffering; it ignores the Constitution; and it will not only tarnish 
our image abroad, but harm our national security. If we defeat the 
previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up my 
good friend Representative Lofgren's bill to overturn and defund this 
dangerous executive order.
  Let me be abundantly clear for people watching this debate. The 
question we are about to decide is: Should we even have a vote on 
undoing Trump's order? A ``no'' vote on the previous question will give 
us the opportunity to overturn this order. A ``yes'' vote means that 
the House will do nothing to stop Trump's executive action.
  The American people watching this debate should take notice to see 
how their Representatives vote on this important motion, and they 
should hold their elected officials accountable. Did your Member of 
Congress turn a blind eye to Trump's unconstitutional policy by voting 
``yes,'' or did your Representative reject this attack on our core 
American values and vote ``no?''
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren),

[[Page 1427]]

my good friend, to discuss this proposal.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, the President's executive order of Friday 
violates the law, it violates the Constitution, and it violates good 
sense.
  How does it violate the law? Section 202(a)(1) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act specifically prohibits nationality-based discrimination 
in the issuance of immigrant visas and other visas. That is what this 
order did.
  Now, the law is clear that individuals who pose a threat to the 
United States can--and I should add, should be--barred from the United 
States; but you can't just legally make a blanket objection based on 
nationality and, I would add, based on religion. That is what the 
President's order does. It suspends refugee admission completely for 
months.
  Who are these refugees? Most of the refugees admitted last year were 
from Burma and the Congo, not from Syria. They are people who have been 
vetted for years, many of whom are fleeing for their lives and will 
continue to live in fear.
  It does something else. It suspends admission even of legal permanent 
residents from seven countries, violating their rights to equal 
protection and to due process.
  People want to keep the country safe--we all do; of course, I do--but 
how does this order keep us safe? Let me just give an example.
  General Talib al-Kenani from Iraq commands the elite American-trained 
counterterrorism forces that have been leading the fight against ISIS 
for 2 years. His family relocated to the U.S. for safety. He can't 
visit them anymore. He said this:

       I have been fighting terrorism for 13 years and winning. 
     Now my kids are asking: Am I a terrorist? I am a four-star 
     general, and I am banned from entering the United States.

  I ask you: How does this advance our safety by barring our allies who 
are fighting ISIS? It doesn't.
  I have got to correct something else. People have said that President 
Obama had an order in 2011 barring immigrants from Iraq. That is false. 
We did additional vetting in 2011 because we wanted to make sure that 
anyone coming in was thoroughly examined. That slowed things down a 
little bit because there were new procedures, but there was never a 
halt to admission from those who are our allies in Iraq, those fighting 
ISIS with us.
  I would just like to say that, in addition to violating the law, 
causing hardship for families trying to visit people in the hospital, 
permanent residents who are engineers trying to come back to run their 
companies in Silicon Valley, this order is a gift to ISIS. They are 
already using it to recruit enemies of our country by saying: America 
is fighting Islam. As George Bush said when he was President, our 
argument, our fight is not with Islam. Our fight is with terrorism.
  To issue this order with the President's rhetoric saying that we are 
going to make a distinction on who is admitted to the United States 
based on their religion is not only illegal, it is contrary to American 
values and it is contrary to our safety.
  So I hope that, instead of doing this antienvironment bill today, we 
will instead take up H.R. 724. This is a bill that would defund and 
rescind President Trump's ill-advised order from Friday.
  Let me just say this. I would like to issue a formal invitation to 
every Republican Member of this House to join me as a cosponsor of this 
bill. I will be sending out a formal note to each one later today, but 
you are on notice to please join us.
  We as American legislators need to make sure that the rule of law is 
upheld. Many of our constituents are very uncertain about whether the 
rule of law is going to survive this Presidency. Help give them faith 
and hope by cosponsoring this bill.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the good gentleman 
from West Virginia (Mr. Mooney).
  Mr. MOONEY of West Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong 
support of the rule and the underlying joint resolution to begin the 
process of rolling back President Obama's war on coal. That is the rule 
we are debating today; that is the bill before us, not to be confused 
with the other issue that is being discussed.
  I was proud that, in the last Congress, I was the lead sponsor of the 
STREAM Act, H.R. 1644, which would have prevented the implementation of 
a new coal regulation that would have cost upwards of 70,000 good-
paying jobs. My legislation passed the House of Representatives in 
January of 2016, with bipartisan support, and sent a clear message to 
President Obama's administration that the so-called stream protection 
rule was bad policy. Unfortunately, my bill never received a vote in 
the U.S. Senate.
  Despite the clear message from Congress, the Obama administration, in 
the final days, issued a disastrous stream protection rule. Again, he 
did this as he was leaving the Presidency in the final days before he 
left office. But don't let the clever name fool you. The new regulation 
will have far-reaching impacts for the coal industry--an industry, I 
might add, that provides over 90 percent of the power generation for my 
home State of West Virginia.
  The rule prescribes a one-size-fits-all approach in defiance of 
common sense and the Federal law. There is no need to rewrite over 400 
regulations, as this rule does, other than as a blatant attempt to 
regulate the coal industry out of business. We cannot allow this rule 
to move forward, and thus we need to support the rule and the 
underlying joint resolution of disapproval.
  Let us not forget that former President Barack Obama promised that he 
would bankrupt the coal industry. People are losing their jobs and the 
dignity that comes with work. Our communities are also suffering. Fewer 
jobs means less economic investment and less hope.
  I encourage my colleagues to visit West Virginia or Appalachia and 
see firsthand what President Obama's policies have done to our 
communities. It is heartbreaking to hear the stories and see the faces 
of struggling families as they try to pay their bills. I stand today 
with those communities in rolling back the policies that have caused so 
much harm and pain.
  These new regulations would be catastrophic to the coal industry and 
all of the hardworking American families that depend on coal to keep 
their energy costs low. The shame of it all is that it is preventable. 
We must end this war on coal now, and that process begins today.
  I made a promise to my constituents of the Second District of West 
Virginia that I would fight for the coal industry and bring back jobs 
to my State. Today is the first in many steps this Congress, along with 
President Donald Trump, will take to make good on the promises we made 
in November.
  Again, I encourage support for the rule and the underlying resolution 
of disapproval.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from wearing 
communicative badges while under recognition.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, would the Chair be so kind as to tell me 
how much time remains on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 9\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Washington has 11\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished 
minority leader, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up Congresswoman 
Lofgren's H.R. 724, which would rescind President Trump's refugee ban 
on individuals, like the 30-year-old Iranian citizen who entered the 
U.S. to visit his family in San Francisco, then was detained and 
transferred to county jail.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise that all time has 
been yielded for the purpose of debate only.
  Does the gentleman from Washington yield for the purpose of this 
unanimous consent request?

[[Page 1428]]


  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I do not yield.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington does not 
yield. Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) for a unanimous consent 
request.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I would plead for unanimous consent to 
bring up H.R. 724 to overturn President Trump's refugee ban so that 
individuals like Hameed Khalid Darweesh, who helped the U.S. military 
in Iraq and who has a special immigrant visa, won't be detained at JFK 
Airport for 19 hours.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Washington yield for 
the purpose of this unanimous consent request?
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I am reiterating my earlier announcement 
that all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only, and I will not 
yield for any other purpose.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington does not 
yield. Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 seconds to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 724, 
which would rescind the President's ban for the sake of our national 
security.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands the gentleman from 
Washington has not yielded for that purpose. Therefore, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Maxine Waters) for debate.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am referring to H.R. 
724, which would rescind President Trump's refugee ban so that green 
card holders like Bessar Yousif, a refugee from Iraq on his way home 
after getting engaged in Kurdistan, won't get detained in LAX.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask that President Trump rescind his 
refugee ban on children like the 12-year-old Yemeni girl, Eman Ali, who 
was not allowed to board a plane to join her U.S. parents, leaving her 
in limbo.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cardenas).
  Mr. CARDENAS. Mr. Speaker, as a proud American, I ask to bring up 
H.R. 724, which would rescind President Trump's refugee ban on women 
like the Yazidi refugee from Iraq whose life is in danger because of 
her husband's work with Americans and who was refused boarding on a 
flight to the U.S. out of Erbil.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Now we are back to unanimous consent. Mr. Speaker, I 
yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Brownley) for a unanimous 
consent request.
  Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask this House to 
bring up the Lofgren bill, H.R. 724, which would rescind President 
Trump's refugee ban on Yazidi women from Iraq like Nada, who was not 
allowed to board a flight and remains separated from her husband, a 
former interpreter for the U.S. Army.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Did the gentlewoman make a unanimous consent 
request?
  Mr. HASTINGS. Yes, she did.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Washington has not yielded for that purpose. Therefore, the 
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Am I not permitted to yield a limited amount of time to 
Members for debate?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman said he was yielding to the 
gentlewoman from California for the purpose of a unanimous consent 
request.
  Mr. HASTINGS. In that instance I did. My question and my 
parliamentary inquiry continuing, Mr. Speaker, is am I permitted to 
yield a limited amount of time to each Member for the purpose of 
debate?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may yield to Members for 
debate.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask to bring up H.R. 724, which would 
rescind President Trump's refugee ban on individuals like Dr. Suha 
Abushamma, a Sudanese doctor at the prestigious Cleveland Clinic, who 
was denied entry, forced to leave the country, and, therefore, deprived 
the country of his medical services.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Napolitano).
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I ask to bring up H.R. 724 to rescind 
President Trump's refugee ban on persons like Mustafa, who worked on a 
construction crew on American bases to fortify them and was tortured 
because of it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, bring up H.R. 724, which will rescind 
President Trump's refugee ban so that family members like Qassim Al 
Rawi, a 69-year-old Iraqi national, will not be refused boarding on a 
flight to visit his U.S.-citizen family in the United States.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we could bring up H.R. 
724, which would rescind President Trump's refugee ban on former Iraqi 
translators for the United States, like Faud Shareef, who was cleared 
to settle in Nashville, Tennessee, along with his family, but stopped 
before he could board his flight and sent back to harm's way in Iraq.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday's headline in The Washington Post: 
``These Muslim families sought refuge in America's heartland. Now, 
Trump's visa ban is tearing them apart.'' One is in my district.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask that we bring up H.R. 724, which 
would rescind President Trump's immigration ban so that students like 
Maryim can return to classes at the University of Chicago and other 
students can continue their studies at U.S. colleges and universities.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Ms. Jayapal).
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I ask that this House bring up H.R. 724, 
which would rescind President Trump's refugee ban on children, like 16-
year-old Afghani boy Sardar Hussein, who lost his family in a car bomb 
and now hopes after nearly 2 years of ordeal to get on his flight to 
America.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Carbajal).

[[Page 1429]]


  Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
724, which would rescind President Trump's refugee ban on women like 
Sara, an Afghani television presenter who fled amidst death threats, 
had waited for years to be resettled in the U.S., only to have her 
hopes dashed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  The gentleman from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip and my good 
friend.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and urge 
that we bring up H.R. 724, which would rescind President Trump's 
refugee ban on children, like a 5-year-old that came to Dulles Airport 
with another family. Her mother was waiting for her, and for 4 hours 
she was not allowed to see her mother. That is not good policy. It is 
not good for the safety of our troops. It is not good for the safety of 
America. Let's pass H.R. 724.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 seconds to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).
  Mr. SCHNEIDER. Mr. Speaker, I ask this House to bring up H.R. 724, 
which would rescind President Trump's refugee ban on women like Sahar 
Alghnimi, who came here to care for her elderly mother who had just 
undergone surgery, only to be detained at O'Hare Airport and ultimately 
returned to Abu Dhabi.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 8\1/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 10 seconds to 
the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
724, which would rescind President Trump's refugee ban on families like 
that of Ghassan Assali, which was en route to Pennsylvania from Syria 
on approved visas and then turned away and flown back to Qatar.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Allen). As previously announced, that 
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 10 seconds to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat).
  Mr. ESPAILLAT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
724, which will rescind President Trump's executive order to ban 
Muslims. Having been at JFK Airport this weekend, I stand in support of 
military soldiers who risked their lives and whose family members were 
unlawfully detained and questioned, even after their service to our 
country. This is un-American.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, that unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
724, which would rescind President Trump's refugee ban in light of 
individuals--women like Faten Diab, a Syrian refugee and former charity 
work whose family had applied for settlement to the United States but 
will now not be able to come.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, that unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 724, 
which would rescind President Trump's refugee ban that prevented South 
Carolina resident and data scientist Nazanin Zinouri from returning to 
the United States after visiting her mother in Iran.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, that unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Matsui).
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
724, which would rescind President Trump's refugee ban on individuals 
like the student from Afghanistan who was denied entry, sent back, and 
had her visa canceled.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, that unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up 724, 
which would rescind President Trump's refugee ban on those who, like 
69-year-old Armenouhi Badalyan and 77-year-old Hmayak Shahmirian, are 
Christian refugees from Iran and have applied for resettlement in the 
U.S.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, that unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Davis).
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
bring up H.R. 724, which would rescind President Trump's refugee ban in 
light of individuals like Jordanian Musa Sharkawi, a cardiology fellow 
in Connecticut whose wife is a Syrian doctor and whose family cannot 
visit her because of the ban.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, that unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Barragan).
  Ms. BARRAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
724, which would rescind President Trump's refugee ban and stop the 
separation of families like that of the Iranian professional whose wife 
is trapped in Iran and who is considering leaving the United States 
because of it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, that unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 10 seconds to 
the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Demings), my home girl, for a 
unanimous consent request.
  Mrs. DEMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that we bring up 
H.R. 724, which would rescind President Trump's refugee ban on 
individuals like Amir Haji-Akbari, a computational statistical 
physicist from Iran who was just offered an assistant professor job at 
Yale University.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, that unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Ms. Adams) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 724, 
which would rescind President Trump's refugee ban on women like the 77-
year-old held at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport as she tried 
to see her son and his family for the first time in years.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, that unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.

[[Page 1430]]


  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the Northern 
Mariana Islands (Mr. Sablan) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Speaker, as a grandfather, I ask unanimous consent to 
bring up H.R. 724, which would rescind President Trump's refugee ban on 
women, like the 69-year-old who was scheduled to visit the U.S. this 
past weekend to meet her new grandson but is now in limbo.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, that unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Judy Chu) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
bring up H.R. 724, which would rescind President Trump's refugee ban on 
families like the Syrian refugee family of six who were scheduled to 
arrive in Cleveland on Tuesday, January 31, but are now blocked 
indefinitely.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, that unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring 
up H.R. 724, which would rescind Donald Trump's refugee ban and help 
unify the family of Farah Usa, a refugee who risked her life for United 
States forces in Iraq and whose father, mother, and sister are now 
barred from entering the United States of America.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, that unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to bring up H.R. 724, which would rescind the President's 
refugee ban that impacts green card holders like the woman located in 
Iran with her 3-year-old U.S. citizen daughter.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, that unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 724 would repeal Trump's overreaching 
executive order that purports to make America safer. It is time to 
restore American values. What are the Republicans afraid of? If you 
support his action, bring up the bill and vote against it. If you don't 
support his action, we are giving you an opportunity to restore the 
lawful rights of Congress representing the American people.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, that unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, because our Nation has always welcomed 
refugees and the poor and those who are in need, I don't know why we 
don't bring up H.R. 724, which would rescind President Trump's refugee 
ban on students like the Iranian-born anthropology student who left the 
U.S. to carry out research and is now likely to be unable to return to 
defend his thesis. If you do not believe in the ban, bring it up so we 
can vote against this ban.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Torres) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, this is what a refugee looks like, and I 
ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 724, which would rescind 
President Trump's refugee ban and help unify the family of an Iraqi 
refugee who is now separated indefinitely from her husband and children 
because of the ban.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, that unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 10 seconds to 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my good friend that I 
serve on the Rules Committee with, for debate.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask my Republican friends to bring up 
H.R. 724, which would rescind President Trump's appalling and 
discriminatory refugee ban on women like Samira Asgari, a scientist 
from Iran who was set to begin a project to study tuberculosis at 
Harvard Medical School, and was stopped from boarding her flight to the 
United States. Let us have a vote, let us have a little democracy, in 
the people's House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New 
Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up 
H.R. 724, which would rescind President Trump's refugee ban on 
individuals like the Syrian skin cancer researcher living in Germany 
whose visa to visit colleagues in Philadelphia has now been revoked. 
Let us vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, that unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Brendan F. Boyle) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, you probably won't 
be surprised to learn that I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
724, which would rescind President Trump's appalling refugee ban on 
individuals like the young scientist in Iran who was awarded a 
fellowship to study cardiovascular medicine at Harvard, but whose visa 
has now been indefinitely suspended.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, that unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
724, which would rescind President Trump's outrageous ban on Muslims so 
that the San Fernando Valley's own Darrius Hicks, an American citizen, 
can be reunited with his wife, who is a humanitarian worker working 
with Afghan war victims in Iran. She has been denied even the chance to 
schedule a visa interview at our embassy in Abu Dhabi.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, that unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Huffman).
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
724, which would rescind President Trump's unconstitutional Muslim ban 
that led to a Stanford University graduate student who has lived in the 
United States since 1993 getting handcuffed and then detained at JFK 
airport for 5 hours.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, that unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Johnson) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring

[[Page 1431]]

up H.R. 724, which would rescind President Trump's cold and callous 
refugee ban on travelers like the UK resident who holds an Iranian 
passport, was due to fly back to Glasgow via New York, and had her 
transit visa revoked.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, that unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Ruiz) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 724, 
which would rescind President Trump's refugee ban and help unify the 
family of Muktar and his wife, who spent 20 years in a refugee camp 
after fleeing Somalia, and will continue to be separated from their 
children who still live in the camp.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, that unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Correa) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. CORREA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
724, which would rescind President Trump's refugee ban in light of 
mothers like Ran Chauhan, who arrived in the U.S. 5 years ago and is 
going through the naturalization process, but is separated from her 
sister and two children who are set to arrive in mid February.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, that unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 724, which would rescind 
President Trump's misguided refugee ban. Scheduled to arrive today in 
Toledo from war-torn Iraq was a fully vetted mother and her three young 
daughters, one of whom is less than a year old. They are forced to 
remain in Tunisia with their futures very uncertain.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, that unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Tonko) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 724, 
which would rescind President Trump's tragic refugee ban that would 
have barred women like the Syrian violinist who has performed at the 
White House and who is worried about her family that remain in Aleppo.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, that unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
724, which would rescind President Trump's refugee ban that keeps apart 
families like that of Luca Freschi, who had planned to move to Harvard 
Medical School in March but whose Iranian wife would not be able to 
join him.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, that unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
724, which would rescind President Trump's refugee ban on women like 
Shadi Heidarifar, a philosophy student at the University of Tehran who 
was accepted to New York University, but is now unsure if she will be 
able to attend.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, that unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.

                              {time}  1345


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, with the Members who have come here and 
asked for unanimous consent and with its being denied by virtue of the 
gentleman from Washington's not agreeing to the unanimous consent and 
with the notion in mind that the period for debate is what is to be 
recognized, my question is: Do the people who did come here and seek 
unanimous consent--although it was not accepted--have the opportunity 
to insert a statement in the Record that signifies their intentions 
with reference to the matter at hand?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members may insert remarks under general 
leave.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 5 minutes and 
55 seconds remaining. The gentleman from Washington has 11\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader of the 
Republican Conference.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Since the beginning of this Congress, we have devoted ourselves most 
prominently to a single goal: making Washington work for the people 
again.
  There is one thing here in Washington that consistently stands 
against our people, our economy, and our Constitution: the Federal 
bureaucracy.
  These agencies, bureaus, and departments--so numerous that nobody 
even knows how many there are--spend their lives thinking up new rules, 
and the rules they produce weigh down businesses, destroy jobs, and 
limit Americans' rights. Career bureaucrats who can't be voted out of 
office wield punishing authority with little to no accountability. They 
are agents of the status quo, and the revolving door of Federal 
employees moving to lobbying arms and consulting firms breed thousands 
of regulations that enrich the connected and powerful, sometimes at the 
great expense of the average American. This is the swamp. This is what 
opposes the people, and we are draining it.
  In recent weeks, this House has already started its two-part plan to 
strip the bureaucracy of its power. We started to change the structure 
in Washington by passing the REINS Act and the Regulatory 
Accountability Act. This week, we begin part two: targeting specific 
rules and stripping them from the books.
  There has been no industry in America that has been more regulated 
than energy. We are going to use the Congressional Review Act to repeal 
the stream protection rule that could destroy tens of thousands of 
mining jobs and put up to 64 percent of our country's coal reserves off 
limits.
  Then we will take on President Obama's 11th hour BLM methane 
emissions requirement. The oil and gas industry in America has already 
drastically reduced methane emissions even while increasing output, and 
the EPA already has the authority to regulate air emissions. Instead of 
helping the environment, this rule could cost America's energy industry 
up to $1 billion by 2025 and force smaller operations, especially out 
West, to shut down and lay off employees. So, this Friday, the House 
will get rid of it.
  We will also take the ax to the SEC disclosure rule, which--now, if 
you can believe it--targets publicly traded American energy companies 
with even more regulatory compliance while it lets foreign companies 
off the hook. Washington should put American companies first, not put 
them at a disadvantage to their foreign competitors.

[[Page 1432]]

  Mr. Speaker, it is not just energy, which would be bad enough; but 
under President Obama, the bureaucracy has even threatened our basic 
constitutional rights. A new rule from the Social Security 
Administration would increase scrutiny on up to 4.2 million disabled 
Americans if they attempt to purchase firearms. For the completely 
unrelated circumstance of having someone help manage your finances, 
Social Security recipients could be kept from exercising their Second 
Amendment rights. In an affront to due process, the bureaucracy has 
even attempted to blacklist from Federal contracts any business that is 
accused of violating labor laws, and that could be before the company 
has a chance to defend itself in court.
  Every single one of these will be gone. With a vote in the House, a 
vote in the Senate, and President Trump's signature, we will get rid of 
every one of these job-killing and destructive regulations. The House 
is always at the service of the people. Now we are making the 
bureaucracy serve the people, too.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I inform the gentleman from Washington 
that I have no further requests for time and I am prepared to close.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time; so, 
yes, I am prepared to close.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The majority leader just got through saying all of the things they 
are getting ready to do to drain the swamp. My feeling about what is 
happening--and I am speaking for myself--is they may very well drain 
the swamp, but if you take out the alligators and you put in crocodiles 
and you put in snakes, you have just made the swamp that much more 
dangerous to the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, the cavalier nature by which my friends across the aisle 
approach the awesome responsibility of governing is as disturbing as it 
is disappointing. They all own this now. They are in charge. Although I 
may understand the emotive desire to turn things on their head, they 
all would be wise to come to the realization sooner rather than later 
that their actions affect real people. All they have to do is just see 
what transpired this past weekend.
  The children, the elderly, the students who are waiting in airports 
across our country who are wishing to flee their oppressors or who are 
simply returning to their lives here at home are real people. They 
heard them being identified in the denied unanimous consent requests of 
my colleagues who came forward here. The children, the elderly, and all 
of the other folks who have to live in environments that are less clean 
and that are more likely to make them sick because of their flippant 
approach here today are real people. To be taken seriously, they must 
act seriously. Within that context, I would have to surmise that they 
all would be judged and found wanting.
  To truly convey the devastating consequences of what has happened 
these past few days, I could quote from one of the Founding Fathers 
about the ideal of freedom from religious persecution; or I could 
recite for them the inscription on the Statue of Liberty, which has 
guided and inspired generations of immigrants and refugees as they have 
come here to seek better lives for themselves and their families; or I 
could quote from Luke 10:25 wherein Jesus tells the parable of the Good 
Samaritan. I will not.
  Instead, I will leave them with the words of Dr. Amir Heydari, a 
bariatric surgeon and United States citizen who has lived in the United 
States for nearly 40 years and who was detained for questioning this 
past weekend:
  ``I wanted to live somewhere that celebrated freedom--freedom of 
speech, freedom of religion, all of these kinds of things. That's what 
everyone in the world thinks about the USA, and unfortunately, when 
these types of actions are taken, the image is not the same anymore.''
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I would just like to take a minute to remind the American people and 
my friends across the aisle that we are here today, as the minority 
leader said, to begin the process of unwinding the burdensome 
regulations that are truly stifling job creation and hurting our 
friends and our families in each and every one of our neighborhoods 
across the country.
  Many from the other side have tried to distract with unrelated 
issues. I just want to be clear that the rule today does not address 
immigration in any way and that none of their requests went through the 
regular and bipartisan process to clear such requests.
  So let's focus on why we are here. We are here because we must take a 
firm stand against the overly burdensome and restrictive regulations 
that have been issued in the waning days of the previous 
administration. By passing this CRA, we can rescind the final stream 
protection rule, which the OSM produced without input from the States--
responsible for enforcing mining regulations--and which disregards 
existing regulations on both the State and the Federal levels that have 
proven to be effective.
  This regulation will have devastating effects on mining communities 
across the country and will lead to significant job losses and higher 
electricity costs--all while weakening U.S. energy security for 
decades. The stream protection rule will drastically reduce our access 
to coal and our ability to develop new clean coal technologies, which 
will result in reduced domestic energy protection and in tens of 
thousands of lost jobs in coal-producing States as well as in 
industries across the country that are reliant on this energy. If we 
fail to pass the underlying bill, the rule's devastating impacts will 
be felt far and wide in our great land as approximately 78,000 mining 
jobs will be lost, which is in addition to the tens of thousands of 
mining jobs that have already been lost in the last 8 years.
  Mr. Speaker, coal is essential to the U.S. economy. It provides 
affordable energy that accounts for almost 40 percent of the Nation's 
electricity supply--almost 20 percent in the gentleman's home State of 
Florida. Because of its abundance, reliability, and affordability, 
electricity generated from coal is generally 30 percent cheaper than 
other alternative energy sources. Additionally, at current consumption 
rates, our country has more than 250 years of remaining coal reserves, 
ensuring that we will have energy security here at home for generations 
to come.
  Passing H.J. Res. 38 will protect American jobs and families from yet 
another burdensome regulation that has failed to follow the basic 
tenets of transparency, inclusivity, and cooperation with stakeholders, 
cooperating States, and, most importantly, the American people.
  Now is the time for Congress to overturn this unparalleled executive 
overreach and implement policies that protect communities that have 
been long forgotten by the former administration. The CRA was designed 
for this exact purpose, and we now have a unique opportunity to pass 
this legislation through both Chambers and see it signed into law.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good, straightforward rule, allowing for the 
consideration of an important resolution that will ensure that mining 
communities and hardworking families are not pressed by another 
crippling Federal regulation. I believe this rule and the underlying 
legislation are strong measures that are important to our country's 
future. I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 70 and the 
underlying joint resolution.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong 
opposition to H. Res. 70 and the joint resolution for which it would 
provide consideration, H.J. Res. 38, expressing disapproval of the 
Stream Protection Rule submitted by the Department of the Interior, 
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement.
  The Stream Protection Rule is a critical update to a decades-old 
regulation that provides clear and established requirements for 
responsible surface coal mining while protecting vital community health 
and economic opportunity across the United States.

[[Page 1433]]

  The rule, crafted in an extensive and transparent public process, 
includes reasonable reforms to avoid and minimize impacts on surface 
water, groundwater, fish, wildlife, and other natural resources. 
Grounded in sound, peer-reviewed scientific evidence and modern 
technological advancements, the rule modernizes 33-year old regulations 
to keep pace with modern mining techniques and incorporates in its 
guidance a broader scientific understanding of the deleterious effects 
caused by unmitigated surface coal mining activity.
  During the development of this critical rule, the Department of 
Interior received over 150,000 public comments, hosted 15 open houses 
and public meetings, and engaged in broad outreach to stake holders 
nationwide. This rule was carefully developed and thoroughly considered 
with all stakeholders provided a seat at the table.
  Ultimately, H.J. Res. 38 would undermine the Stream Protection Rule 
and begin the process to undue monumental steps in the right direction 
to protect the health, well-being, and economic prosperity of countless 
Americans living near coal mining sites. I strongly urge my colleagues 
to reject H. Res. 70, providing for the consideration of the harmful 
H.J. Res. 38. Any effort to undermine this important health, economic, 
and environmental protection results in a lose-lose situation for the 
American public and I oppose it.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:

           An Amendment to H. Res. 70 Offered by Mr. Hastings

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     724) to provide that the Executive Order entitled 
     ``Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the 
     United States'' (January 27, 2017), shall have no force or 
     effect, to prohibit the use of Federal funds to enforce the 
     Executive Order, and for other purposes. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of 
     the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution 
     on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House 
     shall, immediately after the third daily order of business 
     under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the 
     Whole for further consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 724.

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________