[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1510-1519]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    DISAPPROVING A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 70, I 
call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 38) disapproving the rule 
submitted by the Department of the Interior known as the Stream 
Protection Rule, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 70, the joint 
resolution is considered read.
  The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 38

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     disapproves the rule submitted by the Office of Surface 
     Mining Reclamation and Enforcement of the Department of the 
     Interior relating to the ``Stream Protection Rule'' 
     (published at 81 Fed. Reg. 93066 (December 20, 2016)), and 
     such rule shall have no force or effect.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) and the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on 
H.J. Res. 38.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Utah?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  We are starting an historic week in the House, something that was 
replicated almost two decades ago, but we are doing it again and are 
using the Congressional Review Act to look at actual rules and 
regulations. What we are doing is the right thing.
  In 1996, when this act was first passed, President Clinton, after 
signing it, said that this act would give congressional accountability 
for regulations. Even Harry Reid said that this act would be reclaiming 
for Congress some of its policymaking authority, and Sander Levin of 
Michigan, at the time, also said that now we are in a position to do 
something ourselves. If a rule goes too far afield from the intent of 
Congress in its passing the statute in the first place, we can stop it. 
That is exactly what we are attempting to do, and this is one of the 
first of those activities we will be doing this week.
  The Congressional Review Act actually has three purposes in mind. 
They said, if a rule has excessive costs, if a rule goes beyond the 
particular agency's statutory authority, and if a rule is duplicative 
or unnecessary, it should be reviewed by Congress and rescinded. That 
is exactly what we are going to do because this rule, commonly called 
the stream protection rule, does all three of those criteria.
  What I want to do is talk about this rule that was passed at the last 
minute by the former administration--it actually went into effect on 
the very last day of the administration--and say that it violates all 
of those three elements. The act itself--the rule itself--was done in 
secret. They had their own opaque study that they did without letting 
anyone know what the data was. We asked for it repeatedly, but the 
agency refused to tell us. Even in 2015, Congress passed a law in the 
Appropriations Act that mandated they tell us the data, the 
information. They simply ignored that law. They have refused to work 
with Congress in any particular way.

                              {time}  1400

  Actually, it violates law. If this rule goes forward, it violates the 
NEPA law. If gone into implementation, it would violate the Endangered 
Species Act.
  It violates a memo of understanding the Federal Government had with 
10

[[Page 1511]]

States at the time. In fact, there are 14 States suing over this rule 
and regulation. We have the letters of support from 14 State attorneys 
general in support of what we are attempting to do here.
  If put into effect, it clearly violates the Clean Water Act by its 
effort to redefine hydraulic balance, which this agency does not have 
the authority to do. It is given to other elements.
  It also puts us at risk of litigation on a takings issue. There is 
precedent for that. It could happen again, all because of this ill-
defined and unnecessary rule and regulation.
  If we roll it back, there is still protection. There will always 
still be protection. In a Department of the Interior study, they 
clearly said that 93 percent of all the impact has already been taken 
care of and does not actually exist. It would be easy for us to do and 
it would put us back to a rule established in 1983 that is effective in 
protecting these areas. Ninety three percent of all streams have no 
impact by this issue whatsoever.
  It also clearly says, under the report when this rule was being done, 
that the States that are legally supposed to be coordinated and be a 
part of the process were shut out of the process. It is one of the 
reasons why they are still suing, which means the memo of understanding 
signed by those States was ignored by the agency in coming up with this 
rule. The States that regulate 97 percent of the Nation's coal 
production, States and tribes that abate well over 90 percent of the 
abandoned mine problems--they have it in line, they have it ready, they 
are ready to move forward with it--they were simply shut out of the 
process. It is a poor process.
  There was a former icon of this body, a great Member who once 
allegedly said: If I let you make the policy and you let me make the 
procedure, I will screw you over every time.
  This is poor procedure that has produced a poor rule, which will 
result in poor policy. At best, this rule is redundant. It is clearly 
unnecessary, and it does have the potential of hurting people 
nefariously when it does not need to.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in strong opposition to this resolution, which would put coal 
company profits ahead of clean water and public health. The stream 
protection rule has been in development for 7 years and puts in place 
modest, commonsense protections for people who live near coal mines.
  This isn't just a rule to protect streams. This is a rule to protect 
people's health, to protect people's homes, and to protect the clean 
water that they rely on. These folks felt strongly enough about this 
rule to submit public comments.
  The rule is designed to protect people like Donetta from West 
Virginia, who nearly lost her life when chemicals from coal fields 
found their way into her water supply and interacted with her 
medication in such a way that it nearly destroyed her liver.
  The rule is designed to protect people like John from Alabama, who 
reports lakes that have turned gray and streams that have turned 
orange.
  This rule is designed to protect people like David from Tennessee, 
who watched a creek near his grandmother's home become lifeless due to 
strip mining nearby.
  This rule is designed to protect people like Josh from North 
Carolina, who can no longer fish in the streams near a family home and 
wants coal companies to be held accountable for the damage that they 
did.
  This rule is designed to protect people like Jonita from Kentucky, a 
coal miner's daughter whose water supply is tainted with heavy metal 
and other toxins from coal sludge. She wrote: ``Coal put the food on my 
table. It also put the poison in my water. Reasonable trade-off?''
  I don't believe that Jonita or anyone else should have to make that 
trade-off. No one's water supply should be sacrificed in the name of 
higher bonuses for coal company CEOs. Those coal executives have made 
it their overriding goal to kill this regulation; and after spending 
nearly $50 million on political campaign contributions over the past 6 
years, they now have a Congress and a President to do it.
  So for the first time in 16 years and just the second time ever, 
Republicans are going back to Newt Gingrich's playbook and trying to 
successfully use the Congressional Review Act simply because the coal 
industry feels like it shouldn't be held accountable.
  But as we know, this is only the first of five regulations that we 
will be repealing just this week. Later today, they are going to get 
rid of the rule that requires increased transparency on the part of 
oil, gas, and the mining industry. Later this week, we will be fighting 
for the right of oil and gas companies to pollute the air with methane.
  This is the Republican agenda in the age of Trump; an attack on clean 
water, an attack on clean air, an attack on transparency, and an attack 
on human health. If you are a CEO or a wealthy Republican donor, this 
is great news; and you will love the next couple of years. But if you 
are an ordinary American that depends on their government to hold 
companies accountable through tough but fair enforcement of 
regulations, you should be extremely worried.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield to 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson) to explain this joint resolution.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, the 
stream protection rule is not about protecting streams. It was designed 
for one purpose--to regulate the coal mining industry out of business. 
It is the centerpiece of the Obama administration's war on coal.
  The simple truth is revealed when you begin to follow the Office of 
Surface Mining's 7-year approach to writing this job-killing rule, a 
process which began only after the previous administration discarded 
the rule's predecessor, a 2008 regulation that underwent 5 years of 
extensive environmental review and public comment.
  That was just the beginning. Since then, millions of taxpayer dollars 
have been needlessly spent developing this rule. Contractors were hired 
to help rewrite the rule, but then subsequently fired when it was 
leaked that the initial revisions of the rule would cost thousands of 
jobs, and that was within the first few months of this attempted 
rewrite.
  Unfortunately, estimated job losses have only skyrocketed since the 
final rule was released. What is troubling is that, throughout the 
rule's rewrite, the administration refused to visit mines or to 
actually assess the impact of the rule on operating mines.
  There were attempts to cover up data that concealed the rule's true 
economic impact. The Office of Surface Mining also repeatedly refused 
to provide Congress with important documents it used to develop the 
rule, while keeping State regulating agencies charged with implementing 
this onerous rule in the dark and at arm's length throughout the entire 
rewrite.
  Now, after 7 years of this politically motivated rewrite, the 
previous administration issued the final rule as they were leaving 
town, well after the American people--particularly those men and women 
in coal country--had sent a clear message to Washington. Politically 
motivated attacks on the livelihoods of those who keep the lights on 
will not stand.
  The issuance of this rule, after all these facts are considered, 
proves what I said earlier. This rule is about one thing: regulating 
the coal industry and putting thousands of hardworking Americans that 
depend on the coal industry for their livelihoods in the unemployment 
line.
  No one cares more about our streams that run through coal country 
than those who live there, and no public officials know better how to 
create a balance between protecting both jobs and the environment than 
those serving in local and State governments that represent coal-
producing communities. It is certainly not the beltway bureaucrats in 
Washington.

[[Page 1512]]

  I look forward to what I hope to be and should be a bipartisan vote 
supporting today's important resolution.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lowenthal), the ranking member of the Committee on 
Natural Resources' Subcommittee on Energy and Minerals Resources.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.J. Res. 38.
  The science is clear: mountaintop removal mining is harmful to the 
health of people who live near these mines. Anyone with a computer can 
go to Google Earth and see the tremendous scars on the landscape from 
mining companies that blast the tops off mountains and then dump the 
waste into the valleys below. But largely invisible to the naked eye is 
the suffering of people who live in the nearby communities because of 
these harmful practices.
  The stream protection rule will protect hundreds of vulnerable 
families and children who live near these sites from lung cancer, heart 
disease, kidney disease, birth defects, hypertension, and other health 
problems.
  If the majority has a problem with this final rule, as they say they 
do, they should hold a hearing in the Natural Resources Committee to 
discuss its merits. There we would have an opportunity to talk to the 
administration and hear from those who are most affected by mountaintop 
removal mining.
  Instead, they have decided to bypass regular order, go straight to 
the Congressional Review Act, which will take a chainsaw to this 
commonsense pollution rule. This is a reckless approach.
  I urge my colleagues to take time to listen to the voices of the 
American people. Please put the health and safety of American families 
first and vote ``no'' on this reckless resolution.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins), someone who has forgotten more about 
coal than I will ever know.
  Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
resolution. Like so many folks, I have been fighting this misguided 
rule for years. Miners have been fighting this rule for years. And 
States--bipartisan, Democrat and Republican--have been fighting this 
rule for years.
  Stopping this rule matters to West Virginians, to our miners, to our 
families, to our consumers. We produce 95 percent of our electricity 
from coal. It is reliable and it is affordable. Coal employs 20,000 
West Virginians, and tens of thousands more make their living related 
to coal.
  The loss of a coal job and the closing of a coal mine affects us all. 
Its severance tax revenues help to fund our schools, pay for our police 
and fire departments, and put money in the coffers of our local 
governments.
  This rule would cost cities and counties $6.4 billion in tax revenue 
over a year, with the decline in coal mining. That means even more 
cuts.
  When we lose coal jobs, we lose other jobs as well. When coal 
families lose a paycheck, they aren't able to buy goods and services 
like they used to. That hurts small businesses, our shops, and our 
restaurants.
  It is estimated that this rule would kill 281,000 coal jobs and 
related jobs in other fields. My State can't afford to lose any more 
jobs, and I know that goes for other coal States.
  However, despite these facts and the objections of more than a dozen 
States, the Office of Surface Mining adopted a go-it-alone approach. 
They ignored input that contradicts their agenda. They withheld 
information on the rule and restricted States from reviewing it. Well, 
that ends today.
  I thank Chairman Bishop, I thank the House Natural Resources 
Committee, and I thank the leadership of the House for their support on 
this resolution. Thank you, Senator Capito and Leader McConnell, for 
your leadership in the Senate. We also have the support of the White 
House on this resolution.
  With a simple majority vote in the House and the Senate, we will end 
this rule and stop this job-killing, anticoal agenda.
  I urge support on this joint resolution.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, it should be noted for the record that the 
Republican majority conducted a 4-year investigation into the 
development of this rule, holding 12 hearings, issuing two subpoenas, 
collecting 25 hours of audio recordings and 13,500 pages of documents, 
but were unable to uncover any political interference or misconduct in 
the development of this rule.
  I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. 
Lawrence).

                              {time}  1415

  Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.J. 
Res. 38. This rule is a much-needed update to existing mining 
regulations. It ensures that communities that reside by mining 
operations monitor water pollution levels.
  I am standing here today to continue to speak up and fight for clean 
water in America. I promised that I would stand up and make sure that 
never again in America another community would be poisoned by the 
water. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that miners deserve clean water as 
well.
  This resolution monitors drinking water sources for pollution, such 
as lead and other toxic substances, and provides that information to 
the public. Have we learned something from Flint, Mr. Speaker?
  This rule will also help protect land and forests by ensuring that 
companies restore the land and water sources that were impacted by a 
precious occupation in our country, and that is mining operations.
  Let's defeat this resolution that prohibits commonsense rulemaking, 
protects the environment, and protects the rights of Americans to have 
access to clean, safe drinking water, while also creating jobs.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I don't want to quibble over 
details, but we actually held 13 hearings and passed four bills over 
the last three Congresses about this particular rule and found 
countless problems with it. That is why we are here today.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley), 
who knows the real impact on his constituents that this rule will have.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Congressional Coal 
Caucus, I rise today in strong support for this action.
  After 8 long, tortuous years, our coal communities have endured a 
withering attack from Washington bureaucrats focused on this agenda of 
anticoal. What has been the result?
  Across this country, in the coal fields of this country, 400 mines 
have closed down, 83,000 coal miners have lost their jobs, 246 power 
plants have closed down, and our electric utility bills have gone up 45 
percent.
  Then, right before President Obama left town, his administration 
punctuated its war on coal with this damaging further rule. This rule 
is nothing more than an organic manifestation of a Washington 
bureaucracy drunk with power. If it is left unaddressed, this rule 
would shut down an additional number of coal mines, and 78,000 men and 
women would lose their jobs because of this rule.
  For the last 2 years, our Coal Caucus, bipartisan members, have made 
stopping this rule our number one priority, because it has nothing to 
do with the health of America, the safety of America, and the life of 
Americans.
  Simply put, it was President Obama's attempt to drive a final nail 
into the coffin of an industry that made America great.
  Look, enough is enough. This war on coal has to come to a stop, and I 
think this election set the tone for that.
  Now that we finally have a President who understands the painful 
impact of excessive and unnecessary regulations, we should pass this 
CRA as quickly as possible so he can sign it.
  It is time to give the families of the coal fields all across America 
a chance to get relief from the unelected bureaucrats in Washington.
  I thank the chairman for his work in getting this. I thank him for 
the cosponsorship that we have had with Congressmen Johnson and Jenkins 
to help

[[Page 1513]]

us out on this, to get this before us. We have to do this for the 
people of West Virginia and around the country.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, if there is a war on coal, it is being led 
by the natural gas industry who produces a cheaper product at a lower 
cost. And if there is any trouble that coal is in, it is directly 
attributed to the free market and that competition.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Huffman), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water, Power and 
Oceans.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this attempt to 
politically override the Interior Department's stream protection rule.
  Much like the destructive mountaintop removal practice that this rule 
is designed to prevent, this Republican assault on the environment and 
the health of coal mining communities is a crude and dirty process.
  Using the Congressional Review Act, a single hour in Congress is 
going to be enough to remove a rule that reflects 7 years of national 
public debate, including at least 30 stakeholder meetings, over 100,000 
public comments. This blows up the regular legislative and regulatory 
process, ignores science, marginalizes public health, and puts 
communities at risk.
  Let me be clear: when the coal dust settles on this devastating 
resolution, it certainly won't be Members of Congress who are left 
drinking polluted drinking water or battling lung cancer, heart 
disease, and birth defects.
  Much like the coal executives who profit from exhausting and 
polluting the natural resources of these communities, the GOP will move 
on to the next target and look for the next way to let business off the 
hook, to let them externalize their costs to the environment, to local 
communities, and, ultimately, to the U.S. taxpayers who have to clean 
up the mess.
  But communities in the Appalachian Mountains, vital salmon streams in 
Alaska, and much-needed water supplies across this country will be left 
dealing with the aftermath, while our Republican colleagues boast about 
having provided so-called regulatory relief.
  For all the talk about coal jobs from Republicans and our new 
President, you would think they would care just a little about 
protecting the health of these coal miners and their families and their 
communities. And yet, when given a chance to protect the water quality 
of 6,000 miles of streams in coal country, this House is choosing to 
side with the polluting industry instead.
  That is shameful, and we should oppose this wrong-headed resolution.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), who chaired most of our 13 hearings on 
this issue, and who represents a State that is suing because they were 
ignored in this rule, where they should have had their rights under the 
Clean Water Act, which is part of the problem we have here.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, on December 20, 2016, the stream rule was 
finalized in the last days of the Obama administration by the Office of 
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, OSM. Ostensibly, the rule 
is about keeping American waterways clean. In reality, it is a power 
grab aimed at giving Federal regulators more authority to make coal too 
expensive for anyone to mine or use.
  But no one should be surprised. In 2008, then candidate Barack Obama 
told the San Francisco Chronicle that while people would still be free 
to build a coal-powered electricity plant under his energy policies, it 
would bankrupt them because of the high costs his regulations would 
impose. And that is exactly what President Obama has tried to do.
  Under the stream protection rule, Federal regulators will have 
expanded power to draw up new standards that make it harder to get a 
coal mining permit. OSM's Federal water standards would suddenly take 
precedence over the State standards that have long governed the 
industry under the Clean Water Act. The Fish and Wildlife Service would 
also gain the power to veto coal permits.
  The aim is to take permitting power from States and impose a one-
size-fits-all standard. When this process started, 10 States signed on 
to Interior's rulemaking process as State cooperating agencies. But 8 
of the 10 later withdrew because Interior wasn't interested in what 
they had to say.
  The subcommittee I chaired held 13 hearings to expose the flaws 
behind this rule. The rule provides no discernable environmental 
benefits, while duplicating extensive existing environmental 
protections at both the Federal and State levels.
  In fact, the rule's only purpose appears to be to support the 
environmental lobby's ``keep it in the ground'' platform, locking away 
up to 64 percent of our domestic coal reserves, putting tens of 
thousands of Americans out of work, and raising energy costs for 
millions of Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the joint resolution of 
disapproval under the Congressional Review Act.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Brown), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.
  Mr. BROWN of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 
38. Today, I speak against eliminating the Department of the Interior's 
stream protection rule. The proposed rule is about balancing the need 
to support our American coal industry with our responsibility to 
safeguard and protect our environment.
  What is most concerning and simply outrageous is that this bill 
proposes to not only overturn the stream protection rule, but it would 
prohibit the Interior Department from ever issuing a similar rule in 
the future, even as technology advances and best practices to safeguard 
the environment improve.
  The rule, which was drafted over 7 years, after 30 public meetings 
and over 100,000 public comments, is the first major update to surface 
mining regulations in more than 30 years, but is being rolled back 
without even a single hearing in this Congress, which doesn't follow 
regular order.
  Mr. Speaker, Maryland has a rich history of coal mining, a history 
that predates our Nation's founding. Yet, for a decade, we have 
witnessed a slow decline in coal production and a shift toward cheaper 
and cleaner sources of energy. Nevertheless, the industry in Maryland 
continues to employ hundreds of people, produce nearly 2 million tons 
annually, and coal is the leading export commodity leaving the port of 
Baltimore. I support the coal industry in Maryland.
  But in Maryland, where the streams from our mountain panhandle, coal 
country, flow into the Potomac and eventually the Chesapeake Bay, we 
have taken proactive steps to mitigate the environmental impact 
associated with mining, requiring companies to develop and follow 
reclamation plans, divert streams, treat acidic drainage with 
chemicals, and control erosion and runoff.
  However, our efforts and requirements haven't kept up with modern 
technology and innovative best practices. And the proposed rule enables 
us to employ better technology to better achieve our environmental 
goals.
  The Department of the Interior estimates that compliance costs will 
amount to a de minimis percentage of coal industry revenues, there will 
be a minimal impact on mining jobs, and it will create good-paying, 
green jobs. We will protect 6,000 miles of streams, 52,000 acres of 
forest, and reduce 2.6 million more tons of carbon dioxide emissions.
  Mr. Speaker, representing families in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, I 
understand firsthand that once the ecologies of streams, rivers, and 
bays are degraded, they cannot be easily reclaimed.
  Now is not the time to turn back or turn our back on technology that 
is available and that is offered up in this rule.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), part of our committee who has heard the 13 
hearings, understands this issue, and was part of the House when we 
voted four different times to be opposed to this particular rule.

[[Page 1514]]


  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, there is no question that President Obama put 
his own environmental legacy ahead of the well-being of the American 
people. The Obama administration squandered taxpayer money for 8 years 
attempting to force the stream protection rule down our throats.
  The deception and lack of transparency utilized to implement this 
rule were unprecedented. Along with manipulating job loss numbers, the 
administration even changed the rule's name, thinking the American 
people might forget about it. But the fact is, you can't put lipstick 
on this pig. Whether you call it the stream buffer zone rule or the 
stream protection rule, the rule still stinks.
  The American people who want good-paying careers have missed out on 
hundreds of thousands of jobs around the country as a result of 
President Obama's ideologically-driven war on coal. But today is a new 
dawn in America, and this job-killing, midnight regulation is now 
directly in the crosshairs of the Trump administration and of this 
Congress.
  On behalf of all hardworking Americans, I urge my colleagues to vote 
to support this commonsense legislation.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Beyer), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, with respect, I quote Mr. McKinley: ``We have 
to do this for the people of West Virginia and around the country.'' 
And I agree, and this is why we need the stream protection rule.
  It is a commonsense approach to minimizing the impacts to surface 
water and groundwater from coal mining.
  In Appalachia alone, mountaintop removal has been responsible for the 
destruction of 2,000 miles of streams. Peer reviewed studies have 
linked mountaintop removal mining to cancer, birth defects, and serious 
health problems for residents living near these mining sites.
  Just look at my Virginia map. The highest death rates in the State 
and the most chronic diseases are in the coal fields.

                              {time}  1430

  I saw this firsthand while I was Lieutenant Governor of Virginia for 
8 years, when mountaintop removal mining became the most prevalent coal 
mining technique in central Appalachia.
  That is why this is so important. Communities near coal mining sites 
have a right to know what is in their water because it impacts their 
livelihood and their lifespan.
  This rule includes commonsense monitoring of streams--many of which 
are important drinking water sources--for pollutants such as lead, 
selenium, and manganese. Basic monitoring for these toxins is 
essential, given their potential impacts on human health and the 
environment.
  The rule also requires that streams and lands disturbed by surface 
coal mining be restored. This would result in the protection or 
restoration of approximately 6,000 miles of streams and 52,000 acres of 
forest over the next two decades.
  This is really important because we know the contamination of streams 
by coal mining pollution threatens everything from fishing and outdoor 
recreation to small businesses like restaurants and farms that are 
relying on clean, safe water. This rule is an appropriate balancing act 
between our energy needs and our environmental protections, and it is 
also appropriately flexible to coal mining companies.
  Most importantly, the Congressional Review Act doesn't make sense 
here. If you want to trim a tree, you don't chop it down and bury it 
under cement so it will never grow again. The Congressional Review Act 
is an extreme measure that would permanently damage our surface mining 
laws. We have heard that it was a product of more than 7 years of work 
and the chairman talks about the 13 hearings, but not one has been held 
in the 18 months since the rule was proclaimed.
  The Congressional Review Act describes the vast amount of work that 
the Office of Surface Mining did in order to create this rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Woodall). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, what is most dangerous is, because of the 
lack of clarity regarding the Congressional Review Act's prohibition on 
similar rulemakings, the agency may never take future efforts to update 
and improve surface mining regulations. Even if you don't like this 
surface protection rule, disallowing any future protections for the 
water and health of communities living near coal mining operations 
makes no sense at all.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I now have the pleasure of 
recognizing people who are not on our committee but still know how 
silly this rule actually is.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost.)
  Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration anticoal regulation 
was a solution in search of a problem. It wasn't intended to protect 
the environment. It was intended to put coal miners out of work. And, 
sadly, it has been successful in achieving that goal.
  A study of the rule estimates it would destroy more than one-third of 
our coal jobs, and that nearly half of all coal resources would 
effectively be off limits to mining. In addition, the OSM rule has 
ignored clear congressional directives to share information with the 
States.
  If ever there has been a time for Congress to act, this is it. I urge 
my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. McEachin), the ranking member of the 
Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations.
  Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this 
resolution to overrule the stream protection rule, just as I would 
oppose any measure that threatened the quality of our drinking water.
  Clean drinking water is a fundamental health need, and meeting that 
need is one of our most basic responsibilities in this Congress. We 
must not put special interests ahead of the health of our constituents.
  The stream protection rule is very simple:
  It strengthens and clarifies existing water quality protections with 
respect to mining.
  It requires that affected streams be restored when mining is 
finished.
  It gives communities accurate information about water quality so they 
can best protect themselves from pollution.
  Mr. Speaker, these protections are not onerous, but their benefits 
are vast.
  We have seen in Flint, Michigan, and elsewhere the painful 
consequences when people lack access to safe drinking water. We must do 
more to prevent that kind of suffering and damage. Nixing this rule 
would, instead, mean that we are doing less.
  The stream protection rule is the product of a careful year's-long 
process. Countless stakeholders participated at two dozen public 
meetings, and regulators received tens of thousands of public comments.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule was crafted in the sunshine, but we are about 
to overrule it in the dead of night. After all of that work, this 
resolution of disapproval did not even receive a committee hearing.
  Mr. Speaker, if this body is seriously going to weaken vital drinking 
water protections, the American people deserve ample opportunities to 
inform themselves and to make their voices heard. This rushed-through 
proposal denies them that opportunity.
  I find this measure to be very disturbing, and I find the process 
concerning. I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle not 
to go down this path.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, nice to know that 2:30 in the 
afternoon is the dead of night.

[[Page 1515]]

  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, a little over a year ago, I took a mile-
long, 30-minute ride with coal miners into a 3\1/2\-foot-high coal mine 
in the mountains of Pennsylvania. I was reminded that day about the 
incredible work ethic of the folks in western Pennsylvania, the same 
work ethic that literally built this country in the 19th and first half 
of the 20th centuries.
  The regulation we vote on today is one of the last rules that the 
Obama administration pushed out. This regulation has a single purpose: 
the demise of the coal industry and the thousands of middle class jobs 
that depend on it. This regulation is the culmination of former 
President Obama's ideological war on American energy that provides 
minimal benefit but tremendous cost.
  I care about the miners and the workers I met with whose middle class 
jobs are at risk. I care about utility customers whose electric bills 
will go up because this regulation will take valuable American energy 
offline. I care about the communities that are hurt when these coal 
mines close.
  This country continues to make tremendous progress on cleaning up the 
environment, progress that will continue without this job-killing 
regulation. If you care about the workers, if you care about these 
communities, you will vote ``yes'' on this CRA and block this job 
killer.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this dangerous 
effort to block the stream protection rule, a commonsense proposal that 
has the potential to save lives and will improve the health, outcomes, 
and well-being of families over time throughout coal country.
  This bottle of--I guess you could call it a liquid--wasn't taken from 
an industrial waste site or from the runoff of a landfill. This came 
from the drinking well of the Urias family's home in Pike County, 
Kentucky.
  Despite what it looks like, there is water in there along with 
chemicals, toxic minerals, and known carcinogens, all present in this 
family's drinking water because of mountaintop removal.
  The mountaintop removal process begins with beautiful mountains that 
look just like this. These are Appalachian Mountains near the West 
Virginia-Kentucky border.
  First, they raze an entire side of the mountain, tearing trees from 
the ground and burning down any plant growth. From there, they use 
explosives to blast the tops off the mountains and push rock and dirt 
out, ultimately filling the surrounding streams and waterways with 
debris, blast materials, and other dangerous elements and minerals that 
end up in the drinking water of the Urias family and countless others 
throughout coal country.
  This is what is left.
  As we have noted during our fight for funding to help the families of 
Flint, Michigan, dealing with water contamination, this should not 
happen here in America in the 21st century; yet families in coal 
country have been dealing with this for 40 years. So you can imagine 
how many people's health has been jeopardized by this practice.
  The stream protection rule that the House is about to block would 
serve as one of the only safety measures that would protect these 
families from poisonous drinking water, higher rates of cancer, lung 
disease, respiratory illness, cardiovascular disease, birth defects, 
and the countless negative health effects that plague this region.
  If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to block the 
safeguards of the stream protection rule, they should at least consider 
supporting my legislation, the Appalachian Communities Health Emergency 
Act, or ACHE Act. I introduced this bill earlier today with 
Representative Slaughter to suspend new mountaintop removal permits 
until the Department of Health and Human Services can conduct a 
comprehensive Federal study of the health effects of this reckless 
mining method used in my State of Kentucky and throughout coal country.
  I believe mountaintop removal should be banned, but at a minimum, we 
should halt all new permits until the safety of the residents in the 
surrounding communities is assured. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to 
oppose today's effort to block this potentially lifesaving rule and 
support the ACHE Act.
  We have failed to protect the families in these communities, and 
passage of this bill will inflict another blow to their health and 
well-being. They deserve far better.
  I will make a final offer to my colleagues on the other side. If 
anybody wants to come and take a drink out of this, I will withdraw the 
ACHE Act and vote for their legislation.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Renacci).
  Mr. RENACCI. Mr. Speaker, in the waning days of his Presidency, the 
Obama administration finalized the stream buffer rule, a final parting 
shot at the coal industry on his way out the door. Not once did the 
Office of Surface Mining visit and assess the economic impact of this 
rule on operating mines. In fact, in their analysis, they relied on 
``hypothetical mines.''
  These aren't hypothetical mines and they aren't hypothetical jobs 
that will be affected. In the real world, this rule could mean the end 
of coal production in Ohio and the end of thousands of good-paying jobs 
in countless communities like the one I grew up in.
  Ohio will be directly impacted by this rule. Fifty-nine percent of 
our electricity comes from coal-fired power plants, and Ohio's coal 
industry employs thousands of hardworking Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote to stop this rule, to stop 
the war on coal, and to stop this rule which could cause hardworking 
Americans to lose their jobs. I urge my colleagues to support this 
joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), another State that was promised, 
in the Clean Water Act, to have authority which was taken away by this 
simple rule.
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Speaker, the United States is blessed with a wealth 
of domestic energy resources, allowing our Nation to responsibly 
develop safe, abundant, and affordable energy to meet our own needs.
  The Third District of Colorado has blue skies, clean water, while 
maintaining a healthy amount of responsible development of oil, natural 
gas, and coal production in its many communities.
  According to the Energy Information Agency, coal accounted for 
approximately 60 percent of the electricity generated in Colorado in 
2015; yet this vitally important resource that provides affordable 
energy and jobs to many of our families' homes has come under attack. 
Backed by radical interests, the government has issued new rules and 
regulations under the guise of environmental protections, but whose 
true intent is to bankrupt the coal industry with regulatory 
compliance.
  The stream protection rule is a solution in search of a problem. 
Modern mining operations are already adept at avoiding impacts to 
watersheds, as the Office of Surface Mining's own numbers show. The 
industry is also already subject to a wide array of environmental 
statutes and regulations enforced by various Federal and State 
cooperating agencies.
  I urge the passage of this resolution and encourage my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to read a few lines from letters of opposition to this 
resolution. The first comes from a coalition of 75 national and local 
environmental groups who are strongly opposed to this bill.
  They write: ``This long awaited rule provides local communities with 
information they desperately need about

[[Page 1516]]

water pollution caused by nearby coal mining operations, and includes 
several important protections for clean water and the health of 
communities surrounding coal mining operations. Any attack on the 
safeguards in the Stream Protection Rule is an attack on clean water 
and should be opposed.''
  Wildlife and sportsman groups are also opposed.
  The National Wildlife Federation writes: ``The Stream Protection Rule 
is an important water quality rule for our nation. It seeks to empower 
State regulatory authorities to ensure coal mining and reclamation best 
practices, taking into account their unique regional distinctions and 
impacts to local communities and wildlife.
  ``. . . any efforts to undermine the safeguards afforded by the 
finalized Stream Protection Rule, a rule with years of stakeholder 
outreach and engagement, would be an attack on clean water and should 
be opposed.''
  Travel Unlimited says: ``The rule is a worthy, sensible effort to 
reduce the huge impacts of mountaintop removal coal mining . . . on our 
Appalachian streams and rivers.''
  And it goes on and on. They all go on to point out the specific 
impact of mountaintop removal mining on fishing and wildlife and 
sportsmen.
  ``Mountaintop removal mining practices create a survival risk for 
brook trout and other wild trout populations, and impede efforts to 
restore brook trout in already degraded watersheds.''
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Comer), a new Member of Congress, who realizes that 
this rule is long on regulations and short on real new protections for 
people.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favor of repealing the 
stream protection rule.
  I represent a coal-producing district whose economy has been 
devastated by the former President's and his renegade of unelected 
bureaucrats' war on coal.
  Last year, a Presidential candidate boasted among a liberal political 
crowd that she would put a bunch of coal miners out of work. She went 
on to say that the government would then essentially come in and put 
those hardworking, out-of-work coal miners on welfare.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, my coal miners don't want to be on government 
welfare. They want the government to get out of their way and let them 
work.
  Because of senseless, onerous regulations like the stream protection 
rule, the liberals in Washington have succeeded in putting most coal 
miners out of work. I believe that with the passage of H.J. Res. 38 and 
a sensible energy policy created and implemented by businesspeople 
instead of bureaucrats, we can begin to bring coal jobs back to 
Kentucky and help provide the struggling economies in Kentucky's coal 
counties.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. LaMalfa), one of the other members of our 
committee who has served for a long time and has heard many of these 
arguments before.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the measure for 
congressional disapproval of the Department of the Interior's stream 
protection rule, which was created under the guise of protecting the 
environment but, instead, has been very harmful to American jobs.
  They have attempted to cripple an industry--energy--that has provided 
vast amounts of energy to States across this country for decades. My 
home State of California has had a long history of mining that has led 
to incredible economic growth and job opportunities for many of my 
local communities.
  This one-size-fits-all approach fails to provide any regulatory 
certainty to industry and denies important tax revenue from energy 
extraction to the American taxpayer.
  I appreciate my colleagues bringing this to the floor, and I hope we 
can sort through the rhetoric on this against energy jobs of a very 
important segment across the country that supplies so much of our 
energy currently, and can do it with safety and a mind for redeveloping 
our economy.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, the opposition to this particular 
bill goes from coast to coast. We just heard from California. Now we 
will go back to the East Coast.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Yoho).
  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today in support of the 
livelihood of an entire region of our country and industry that was 
unfairly targeted by the Obama administration in pursuit of an 
ideological agenda to do away with our Nation's abundant coal 
resources.
  The previous administration targeted the coal industry and, by 
extension, the hardworking Americans employed by the industry under the 
guise of protecting the environment. We all want clear air and water 
for our Nation's prosperity, but this rule is so strict, it makes it 
impossible for companies to continue to operate. It results in layoffs, 
closed businesses, and ultimately an entire region unemployed.
  Our Nation is blessed with an abundance of natural resources and we 
should utilize them all: oil, hydropower, wind, solar, and yes, clean 
coal, too. We must be prudent about how we regulate our energy 
industries because when one sector is pushed out, it is the moms and 
dads at the end of the month paying their electric bill that feel the 
impact the most. All Americans will be affected, but it will be felt 
more by the ones who can least afford it.
  That is why I am opposed to the rule, and I urge my colleagues to 
support the CRA.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The use of the Congressional Review Act has been categorized as 
reckless and extreme. The CRA was going to cause significant and 
lasting harm.
  If successful, two things are going to happen: the regulation is void 
and the agency is prohibited from issuing another similar rule ever 
again.
  I mention that because this is about health. It is about the health 
of the people living around those mining operations and it is about 
mountaintop removal and the documented analysis that proves that it is 
a danger to health. It contaminates water and it is destructive to the 
environment.
  It is curious that we had 13 hearings--I stand corrected--and an 
investigation that went on in perpetuity, it seemed like. Yet, once the 
rule was finalized and published in 2015, we never had another hearing 
on the item again, which begs the question: If the whole point was to 
delay and prevent this rule from ever taking effect and, more 
importantly, make it susceptible to the Congressional Review Act, 
mission accomplished for the majority.
  But the long-term consequences of using the CRA on a rule that is 
designed to protect people's health, on a rule that is designed to make 
coal companies be transparent and disclose to the public, on a rule 
that every scientific analysis and the science is clear that this rule 
was indeed there to protect both people and communities, I think that 
is the permanent harm being done by this action today--denying the 
people in those communities to return to past practices that created 
the problem that we are dealing with and that this rule attempted to 
address that created that problem.
  Now we return to those times where unregulated mountaintop removal 
causes the destruction to both human beings and the environment that we 
see as a legacy. I think it is not only disrespectful to the people of 
those regions, but it, again, puts their health and the well-being of 
both the environment and humanity in that area at major risk. It is not 
only reckless and extreme to use the CRA, it is also dangerous.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), who clearly understands the situation that 
this rule has presented.

[[Page 1517]]


  Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in favor 
of this Congressional Review Act resolution on behalf of the thousands 
of fellow Kentuckians who have lost their jobs in the coal industry.
  In eastern Kentucky, not far from where I live, it is not just a 
recession that they are experiencing. What is happening in eastern 
Kentucky is a little depression over the last several years. The stream 
protection rule would be the final death knell of a proud industry that 
has literally powered America for over a century.
  When I talk to the men and women of eastern Kentucky about the 
prospects of losing even more jobs in an economically depressed place, 
it is just absolutely devastating. So I applaud the work of the 
committee and I applaud the work of this House to take this matter 
seriously to end this regulation that would put even more of my fellow 
Kentuckians in economic distress.
  Instead of looking at environmental questions as a matter of the need 
to have more government central planning, let's solve environmental 
problems in a different way, through innovation and technology.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
resolution providing for a congressional disapproval of the stream 
buffer rule.
  In my home State of Illinois, coal production employs roughly 5,000 
workers and the industry contributes $2 billion a year to our State's 
economy. In southern Illinois, these are some of the region's best-
paying jobs.
  Unfortunately, this rule was one of the final shots the Obama 
administration fired in their war on coal. Unless reversed, this rule 
is directly going to hurt our Illinois coal miners and those working at 
coal power plants and, in the end, consumers--those who pay the utility 
bills in this country.
  The last administration refused to work in good faith with the States 
when finalizing the rule, even after Congress told them to do so in the 
2015 omnibus bill.
  I include in the Record a letter from the Illinois Department of 
Natural Resources in opposition to the rule.

                                            Illinois Department of


                                            Natural Resources,

                                Springfield, IL, January 30, 2017.
     Re The Stream Protection Rule and The Congressional Review 
         Act.

     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan and Majority Leader McConnell: As the 
     regulatory authority for administering the federal Surface 
     Mining Control and Reclamation Act (``SMCRA'') in the State 
     of Illinois, the Department of Natural Resources 
     (``Department'') appeals Congress to use its power under the 
     Congressional Review Act to disapprove the ``Stream 
     Protection Rule'' (``Rule''), issued by the Office of Surface 
     Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (``OSM'') at 81 Fed. Reg. 
     93066 (Dec. 20, 2016).
       The Rule's ``one size fits all'' approach to regulatory 
     performance standards fails to incorporate important regional 
     differences, such as local geology, hydrologic regime, and 
     climate, as required under SMCRA. For example, stream loss 
     has rarely been a problem in the State of Illinois given the 
     regional hydrogeology of the Illinois Basin. To universally 
     require long term upstream and downstream monitoring would 
     place an undue burden on the State to continually review such 
     data. The rule gives no discretion to state regulatory 
     authorities.
       Despite the claims of OSM in its Regulatory Impact 
     Analysis, the Rule would place significant burdens and 
     additional costs on state regulatory programs. Compliance 
     with the rule would require the Department to revise and 
     restructure its entire coal mining program and add $600,000 
     to $800,000 per year in staffing and equipment costs.
       OSM's failure to properly consult with the State of 
     Illinois and the other states has resulted in a burdensome 
     and unlawful Rule that usurps states' authority as primary 
     regulators of coal mining as intended by Congress under 
     SMCRA, and demands congressional action.
       The Congressional Review Act provides Congress the 
     authority to take action to avoid the harm imposed by the 
     Rule. Accordingly, we respectfully request that you and your 
     colleagues in the Congress pass a joint resolution 
     disapproving the Final Stream Protection Rule under the 
     procedures of the Congressional Review Act, S U.S.C. 801 et 
     seq., so that it shall have no continuing force or effect.
       Thank you for your careful consideration of this request.
           Sincerely,
                                               Wayne A. Rosenthal,
                        Director, Department of Natural Resources.

  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. In this letter, IDNR notes that the 
Office of Surface Mining failed to properly consult with the State of 
Illinois and the other States, resulting in a burdensome and unlawful 
rule that usurps States' authority as primary regulators of coal mining 
as intended by Congress and demands congressional action.
  Mr. Speaker, rules like this are what the CRA is all about. I ask for 
your support.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  The stream protection rule has got to be the poster child for the 
Congressional Review Act's action. There are 400 changes to the bill. 
There are 400 changes in over 1,600 pages of regulations, and there is 
no new, real protection above and beyond what we were using since the 
Reagan administration.
  But it does outline benefits and potential problems for 70,000 people 
directly with their jobs, for 300,000 people whose jobs are threatened 
in a ripple effect, and, unfortunately, for everyone else. Every time 
you turn a light on, your costs will be exacerbated because of this 
particular rule.
  This rule affects the most vulnerable of our population and it hurts 
them. It is time for us to realize that it is time to stop making rules 
and regulations for an ideological approach, and, instead, new rules 
and regulations that help people, not hurt people, as this particular 
one does.
  That is why this House, on four different occasions over the last 
three congresses, has voted against this particular proposal.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, our opposition to this action being proposed by the 
Republicans to eliminate the stream protection rule is, indeed, an 
action that goes against fundamental science, goes against the public 
health of the American people in those communities, and, overall, takes 
the Congressional Review Act and uses it as a bludgeon to keep 
generations and generations in those areas at risk in their health, 
their water, and the general environment in the area.
  The issue of cost is an issue that comes up. The loss of jobs has 
been the creation of competition, not because of any proposed rule.
  Second of all, when we were dealing with the horrors of black lung, 
we were dealing with issues of mine safety for coal miners and the 
struggles that their unions had to go through to get mine safety and 
healthcare protection for their workers.
  At the time, I am sure, those were considered cost factors and why 
not do it. The cost factor here is about human life and it is about 
protection of water. I would suggest that that should be the priority 
of this Congress and not emboldening or enriching the mine operators 
and their profit line.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), my friend.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I have been involved for 28 years on the 
Natural Resources Committee on these issues.
  What we are talking about today is simple here. Yes, it is cheaper. 
If you blow the top off a mountain and you dump it in the valley and 
you bury a stream, it is cheaper. Okay.
  Is that what we are all about here? The most destructive, least 
environmentally responsible, but cheapest way of doing things?
  If we are going to set the precedent here, I can think of a whole lot 
of other

[[Page 1518]]

areas that relate to clean water, clean air, and things that are 
important to the American people and the sustainability of our 
environment that will go away because it would be cheaper. If we can 
just dump the waste out the back door of the factory, that is cheaper.

                              {time}  1500

  If we can just put whatever we want up the stack and people wear gas 
masks, that is cheaper. That is the major argument we are hearing 
today. This rule, a 100-foot buffer--a 100-foot buffer--for toxic 
materials around streams is too expensive. It is cheaper to blow the 
top off the mountain, get the coal out, and take all the overburden and 
other assorted stuff and dump it in the valley and bury the stream.
  The only problem is then it rains. What happens when it rains? Well, 
you can either cap that whole thing and make it impermeable and then 
have big runoff downstream or, as it generally happens, the water 
percolates down through all the waste and becomes a toxic flow.
  Now, you say, well, these are only seasonal streams. Well, seasonal 
streams run into other streams. What happens when you get those toxic 
flows is you kill the other streams. I am seeing this actually in my 
district, not from a coal mine, but from a foreign corporation which 
improperly mined and went bankrupt and left us with the waste. I have 
seen the miles of stream that are killed from the toxics that are 
leaching out from the overburden from the mining that is done. This is 
an absurd place to say we are overregulated.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, in his last month in office, President Obama 
fired one last shot in his war on coal. By finalizing the so-called 
stream protection rule, the Obama administration made it more difficult 
for an already distressed industry to provide a reliable and affordable 
energy source for our economy.
  In reality, the only thing President Obama tried to protect was the 
jobs of bureaucrats at the expense of hardworking Americans. This rule 
adds no new environmental protections. It only duplicates what Federal 
and State regulators are already doing to protect the environment.
  Additionally, this rule could close off as much as half of the U.S. 
coal reserves for mining. The bureaucrats writing this rule did not 
truly understand the impact of this because, in the 7 years they took 
to write it, no one bothered to visit an actual mine.
  We cannot allow out-of-control bureaucrats to regulate an industry 
that employs thousands of Americans out of existence simply to save the 
radical liberal agenda. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting 
this resolution of disapproval of yet another regulatory overreach by 
the Obama administration.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote. I think the 
arguments have been made. The precedent being set tonight by this House 
is a dangerous and extreme precedent that we will all come to regret. I 
urge a ``no'' vote.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the former chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, President Obama made it his mission to bankrupt the coal 
industry when he took office, and through a slew of job-killing 
regulations, he has nearly made good on that promise. His 
administration spent 7 years and over $10 million in taxpayer dollars 
writing the stream protection rule. Even though the bipartisan 2016 
omnibus appropriations bill directed the Interior Department to engage 
with the States before finalizing this rule, the agency refused to 
comply, leaving crucial voices out of the rulemaking process.
  Under this midnight regulation, at least half of the Nation's coal 
reserves would be restricted from mining, and one-third of current 
coal-related jobs would be at risk. This would mean more devastating 
job losses in coal communities across the country, especially in 
Kentucky, where we have already got nearly 13,000 miners out of work.
  It is time to end the madness and give our communities in the coal 
areas a chance to rebuild. I urge support of this resolution.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers. I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of false science today, which is 
appropriate since the agency that concocted this rule refused to allow 
any of the data they used to make the rule to be made public. We asked 
for it. We asked for it in legislation. They simply refused to comply. 
Ninety-three percent of the sites are not having any impact on the 
streams, and the other seven percent we already had rules that covered 
them that did this protection. There is no real new protection in this 
particular act.
  The States, which regulate 97 percent of the coal mines in the United 
States, were shut out of the process, which is why they are suing over 
it. This rule undercuts the State primacy that was provided in the 
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.
  What we are doing here today with this effort is to reestablish the 
article I authority that we have in the Constitution by saying we are 
responsible for the policy, not some agency of the executive branch.
  Adopting this resolution protects the rights of States tasked with 
regulating the coal industry in their borders, and it also actually 
helps people. People are going to be harmed if this act is not repealed 
and actually goes into effect, and the most vulnerable of our 
populations are the ones who will suffer the most because of it.
  Because of that reason, it is right for Congress to do our 
responsibility here and now and repeal this bad act that was done in 
secret that was not allowed to have the openness that we have requested 
in the past and that is simply redundant at best, totally unnecessary, 
and does the harm that it does to real people: 70,000 direct jobs, over 
300,000 indirect jobs, as well as a higher cost to everyone who uses 
energy in this Nation.
  I ask my colleagues to support the resolution of disapproval and vote 
for its final passage.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong opposition to 
H.J. Res. 38, the resolution disapproving the rule submitted by the 
Department of the Interior known as the Stream Protection Rule.
  I would like to express both my support of the Stream Protection Rule 
as well as my deep concern over the use of the Congressional Review Act 
to derail smart regulations that protect our citizens' health while 
simultaneously creating a precedent of recklessly obstructing federal 
rulemaking.
  The Stream Protection Rule is an effective and sensible regulation 
that has undergone years of development in order to compel big 
polluters and industry actors to responsibly dispose of dangerous waste 
so that our water supply and ecosystems remain free of toxic 
pollutants. The attempt to dismantle this rule will cause irreparable 
harm to clean drinking water sources for millions of Americans. The 
Stream Protection Rule provides Americans with an environmental 
monitoring system that assures the cleanliness of the water.
  The residents of the 4th District of Georgia, like many of the 
constituents of my colleagues, live alongside and depend upon rivers to 
be protected from harmful pollutants and toxic chemicals that are the 
product of mining and industrial run-off. Run-off from mining and 
industry sources contaminate stream water with various lethal toxins, 
including lead and arsenic. These pollutants not only impact the lives 
of people living in close proximity to the run-off sources of heavy 
pollutants, but all people who live downstream.
  The water protected by this rule is the same water consumed by our 
families, including children and the elderly. Those exposed to 
carcinogens in their water can suffer from birth defects, cancer, and 
even death.
  Clean and safe water is in the interest of all Americans, regardless 
of their income level or political party. It matters not whether a 
state is red or blue, access to clean water will always

[[Page 1519]]

be necessary, and it should be mandatory. Clean water is a human right 
and this rule ensures our country can provide clean drinking water to 
its citizens.
  I ask my colleagues this question: if the Stream Protection Rule is 
overturned are you prepared to tell your constituents and their 
families that their water will be less safe to drink or use?
  I am not alone in my stance. More than 70 groups representing the 
interests of a wide-swath of American citizens have expressed their 
strong disapproval with this resolution. Two of these groups, the 
Savannah Riverkeeper and Altamaha Riverkeeper organizations, represent 
the environmental concerns of my home, the great state of Georgia. 
These groups along with dozens of others have expressed to our 
country's elected officials that a resolution of disapproval for the 
Steam Protection Rule would significantly jeopardize the well-being of 
millions of Americans.
  By subjecting the Stream Protection Rule to the Congressional Review 
Act, we set a dangerous precedent in delegitimizing federal rulemaking 
procedure, while we elevate the interests of corporations over the 
health and safety of our citizens. The health of our nation's children 
must supersede the maximization of profits.
  For the sake of the millions of Americans who rely on the safety 
regulations established by this rule, I strongly urge my colleagues to 
vote NO on the resolution. The citizens of our nation will thank you 
for putting their health first.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the Resolution of Disapproval under 
the Congressional Review Act that we consider today, if enacted, would 
void the Stream Protection Rule (SPR). In light of an independent 
analysis of the potential impacts of the rule including the loss of at 
least one third of existing coal mining jobs, this resolution is 
absolutely critical for our Nation's coal miners, their communities, 
and the related industries that support and rely on coal mining.
  If enacted, the joint resolution disapproving the SPR would bar the 
Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) from 
reissuing the rule in substantially the same form, or issue a new rule 
that is substantially the same as the SPR, unless specifically 
authorized by subsequently enacted legislation. The SPR represents a 
near-complete regulatory re-write by adding, amending or modifying 475 
different regulations under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation 
Act (SMCRA) program. The unlawful and offending features of the rule 
include impermissibly duplicating and conflicting with other federal 
and state laws; diminishing the exclusive regulatory jurisdiction of 
States with approved programs under SMCRA; interfering with the primary 
governmental responsibility SMCRA delegates to States for developing, 
issuing and enforcing regulations for surface coal mining and 
reclamation operations within their borders; applying to underground 
mining operations standards and requirements intended for surface 
mining operations despite the distinct differences between surface and 
underground mining; and, requiring changes to approved state programs 
without a demonstration that the state program is no longer effective 
in meeting the purposes of SMCRA. Therefore, any rule which includes 
any of these components is substantially the same as the SPR for 
purposes of the Congressional Review Act.
  An example of impermissible duplication or conflict with other 
federal and state laws or the authorities of other agencies would be a 
recently completed biological opinion and memorandum of understanding 
(MOU) between OSM and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the SPR 
allows the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to effectively veto any SMCRA 
permit simply by withholding approval. Issuing SMCRA permits is the 
exclusive province of SMCRA regulatory authorities, which in most cases 
are the States with approved SMCRA programs. Nothing in SMCRA or the 
Endangered Species Act (ESA) gives the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
the power to disapprove, veto, or otherwise withhold a SMCRA permit. 
Any rule subsequently promulgated by OSM which gives the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service the authority to directly or indirectly disapprove 
SMCRA permits would be substantially the same as the SPR and therefore 
impermissible.
  There are many other provisions which overlap, duplicate, or conflict 
with the requirements of other state and federal laws, which is 
prohibited by Section 702 of SMCRA. For example, the SPR violates both 
the Clean Water Act (CWA) and SMCRA by claiming for OSM the authority 
not only to enforce the CWA, but to also superimpose regulations that 
duplicate, conflict with and override CWA programs. Similarly, OSM 
vastly expanded the applicability of the ESA by requiring states and 
operators to account for species proposed for listing as threatened or 
endangered, which runs counter to the intent of the ESA and would have 
circumvented the rulemaking process established in the Administrative 
Procedures Act. Such self-deputization and usurpation of authority is a 
cornerstone of the SPR and any future rulemaking by OSM which attempts 
to duplicate, usurp, conflict with, or otherwise overlap with the 
existing requirements of other state and federal laws and the 
authorities of other state and federal agencies would be substantially 
the same as the SPR.
  The SPR includes dozens of provisions which diminish the states' 
authority under SMCRA. Because of the wide diversity in physical 
conditions across the nation's coal fields, Congress expressly 
delegated to the states the authority for developing and tailoring 
SMCRA's requirements to those conditions. A good example of how the 
rule tramples the states' authority is its attempt to set a national 
definition for ``material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the 
permit area.'' With the diversity in physical conditions and hydrology 
across the states and even within a state, it defies commons sense to 
promulgate a federal definition. It also robs the states of their 
delegated authority to tailor their rules in a manner that is suitable 
for meeting that statutory objective. To make matters worse, the rule 
precludes states from making appropriate adjustments on how SMCRA 
objectives should be achieved for distinct types of operations such as 
surface or underground mines. The rule is replete with examples of the 
mindset that only Washington knows best. Ironically, it's the states 
that possess the vast experience of regulating 97 percent of the coal 
mines in this country since SMCRA was passed in 1977. A rule that 
attempts to repeat this ``one-size-fits-all'' model would be 
substantially the same as the SPR.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holding). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered on the joint 
resolution.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. 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.

                          ____________________