this important legislation addresses the administration's flawed, waste of taxpayer money, and job killing rewrite of the stream buffer zone rule. immediately upon taking over in 2009, the administration began their efforts to rewrite the stream buffer zone rule even though a new rule had just been finished in 2008. from the beginning the office of surface mining and the department of interior fumbled the ball and it's been a train wreck and lack of leadership over the past five years. nearly $10 million of taxpayer money has been wasted by the administration in their attempts to destroy thousands of direct and indirect jobs and cause electricity prices to skyrocket. . would knowed prench -- we know the preferred rule would cost thousands of direct and indirect jobs, not to mention that states like mine would see their electricity prices

skyrocket thanks to increased coal prices. we also know from the whistleblower contractors that worked on the rule that the political appointees in the office of service mining tried to cover up these job loss numbers because they knew how politically damaging they would be in the run-up to the 2012 election year. in fact, the contractors were threated that there, and i quote, would be consequences, if the contractor refused to change the numbers. furthermore, a recent report from the inspector general at the department of the interior confirmed these findings and even quoted the president -appointed and senate-approved director of o.s.m. saying that we need to, quote, fix the job loss numbers. is this the type of good government that the american people expect of our leadership? a rulemaking process that sees political appointees threatening contractors and cooking the books to get a preferred outcome?

under the leadership of chairman doc hastings and the natural resources --, the natural resource committee has been aggressively investigating the malfeasance and rewrite of this rule. in a serious threat to the separation of powers spelled out in the constitution, the administration has largely ignored requests and subpoenas for relevant documents. this is just another example of a presidency and administration ignoring the will of the people and abusing power. that's why this legislation is so important, mr. speaker. it will ensure that my constituents in eastern and southeastern ohio, along with other hardworking americans employed by the coal industry, all across the country, can keep their jobs and continue to mine and use the coal that powers our manufacturing engine here in america. it directs the states to implement the 2008 rule. a rule that had tens of thousands of comments and was thoroughly vetted before being thrown aside by --

mr. hastings: i yield the gentleman one additional minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one additional minute. mr. johnson: after five years the states would be asked to report back with the description and detail of any proposed changes that should be made to the rule. this legislation ensures that the states are directly impacted -- that are directly impacted by the proposed rule would have an actual say-so process instead of a top-down approach from the office of service mining. -- surface mining. and despite what some may say, it does not stop the administration from protecting waterways or the environment. mr. speaker, the rewrite of this rule has cost the taxpayers nearly $10 million and threatens to shut down yunled ground coal mining in america -- underground coal mining in america, killing thousands of jobs in the process. i thank chairman hastings and congressman lamborn for their leadership on this important issue and i urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. and with that i yield back the

balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to recognize my friend from kentucky, a champion for people's health, for wildlife and the environment, an outspoken critic of destructive mining practices, and the sponsor of the appalachian community's health, emphasis on health, emergency act. a bill on which i am pleased to join him as a co-sponsor. mr. yarmuth of kentucky. the chair: for how much time? >> three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for three minutes. mr. yarmuth: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. holt, for yielding. this bottle is filled with water from a well near a mountain top removal mining site in eastern kentucky. in case you can't see it, the water is orange. this is what comes out of the taps in appalachian communities where the water is contaminated by dangerous mine waste, which fills their wells and flows through the streams in their yards. it's the result of an inadequate law that is failing

to protect public health and safety near mountain top removal mining sites. but today, rather than examining ways to strengthen that law and begin to address the public health crisis that accompanies mountain top removal mining in appalachia, we're debating a bill that would make it worse. mining communities already have more instances of chronic disorders and hypertension, as well as higher mortality rates, lung cancer rates and instances of chronic heart, kizzny -- kidney and lung disease, proximity to mining locations also correlates with a higher risk of birth defects and damage to the nervous systems. and yet instead of finding ways to better balance public health and safety with coal mining, or at least working to prevent mining companies from turning our water supply this shade of toxic orange, we are debating a bill to roll back what little protection the federal government currently offers these appalachian communities. i sympathize with my colleagues' desire to protect jobs in the coal fields and the

loss of 75% of eastern kentucky coal mining jobs due to mechanized mining over the past several decades has brought challenges. but a rule to protect waterways that's been in effect since 1983 is not the source of those challenges. nor is addressing the public health crisis that has unfolded in appalachia as a result of mechanized mining. no one here would risk their health by drinking this water. if any of my colleagues want to prove me wrong, i'd like them to come have a sip. it's bad enough that children who live in mining communities color their streams orange when they draw their environment. but it's tragic that the water they drink is denying them the healthy future they deserve. we are risking the health of families in mining communities in kentucky and throughout appalachia by continuing to ignore the toxic orange water that pollutes their drinking supply. i urge my colleagues to stand up for public health and vote against this legislation. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields

back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to a member of the natural resources committee, the gentleman from north dakota, mr. cramer. the chair: the gentleman from north dakota is recognized for two minutes. mr. cramer: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank chairman hastings and chairman lamborn and my friend from ohio, mr. johnson, for introducing this important legislation. i had the great honor for nearly 10 years, prior to coming to congress, to be on the north dakota public service commission where we carried the laws and enforced the federal laws on behalf of our late-night coal industry that employs thousands of people. we had a little over 100,000 acres under permit, mined 30,000 -- 30 million tons of coal every year, and burn it to generate electricity, very low-cost electricity. we had a great relationship with our federal government, our federal partners. we did it in partnership. they appreciated and honored the state.

as a consequence we have clean streams, clean water, clean air , good, rich topsoil. as well as the jobs that come with it. we don't have mountains. so a rule that was designed by somebody to deal with removal mining doesn't really match the prairies of north dakota which is always the problem with one-size-fits-all regulations and that's what we find back home. when the federal government tries to fix every problem with one piece of legislation or one regulation. we were very familiar -- i worked with the 2008 rule. it works just fine. it involves stakeholder involvement and involves consultation with stakeholders. we're missing that in this particular case. and quite honestly, i guess we talk about the war on coal and some might want to deny that one exists. you might believe that if it was just one rule. but in the case of all the rules and regulations and laws coming down from this

administration, it's hard to not believe that there's an attempt to unilaterally disarm our economy in the global marketplace with a war on coal and i urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this important piece of legislation. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: i would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from west virginia, my good friend, mr. rahall. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. rahall: i thank my dear colleague from new jersey for ielding me the time. mr. chairman, i do rise in support of end the legislation. and to my good friend, the chairman of the committee, doc hastings, i commend for bringing this bill to the floor of the house. as he knows, i was -- i'm the only member left in this body that served on the original conference committee that wrote h.r. 2, which was enacted as a

surface mining control and reclamation act of 1977. otherwise known as smcra. due fat nature of my congressional district -- due to the nature of my congressional district, i am very familiar with smcra and what it requires. this law has numerous performance standards governing the coal surface mining and reclamation process. these standards govern everything from the handling of excess oil to the period for successful revengetation prior to bond releels. one fundamental aspect of the performance standards is that area be reclaimed to its president original contour with one exception. the law was clear and provides for an exception from the requirement in the case of mountain top removal operations if certain conditions are met. a stream before you zone rule

is not included among the many smcra performance standards. such a rule was not contemplated by the conferees on h.r. 2 back in 1977. this rule was a manifestation of the bureaucracy. that is not to say that there should not be such a rule. but any such rule must work within the statutory framework of smcra. the effort by the current administration to replace the 2008 stream before you zone promulgated by the interior department does not meet that test. it is clear, at least to me, that the effort by the current administration to revise the 2008 rule is aimed at halting a mining practice that is specifically con downed by smcra -- condoned by smcra. fundamentally there's no question this debate is about jobs. it's about good-paying jobs in west virginia and other areas of the appalachian region. and, mr. chairman, it is about

our economy. needed e it providing flatland for agriculture or industrial facilities or saving millions of dollars by providing a ready-made road bed for a new highway, as has been done and is continuing to be proposed in the congressional district i'm honored to represent. so in conclusion, mr. chairman, i urge passage of the pending measure, preventing government waste and protecting coal mining jobs in america act, and i commend again the chairman of the committee and i commend my colleague from ohio, mr. johnson, for his introducing this bill as well. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm very pleased to yield three minutes to a new member, the gentleman from -- not necessarily a brand new member, but a newer member, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kelly. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for three minutes. mr. kelly: i thank the chairman. mr. chairman, i rise today in really strong support of h.r.

2824. i think if we go back to the president's original candidacy, he said, listen, if you want to continue to make electricity oosing coal-fired power plants, you can do it, but we're going to bankrupt you. there's no question about the war on coal. it is factual. now we come here today and i think that the area of the country that i represent is western pennsylvania, it's hard to look at a source that is so abundant, so accessible, so affordable, so reliant and so sustainable it keeps our energy costs low, it creates thousands of jobs. the administration's efforts have not only eliminated people who are mining coal, they've absolutely eliminated entire communities. and wiped them off the face of the earth. now we look at a piece of legislation and we say, wait a minute in 2008 we had a rule that received certification from the environmental protection agency, and was completely complied fully with the clean water act. so the question becomes, how good does the coal energy have to become in order to receive a

pat on the back from the administration and the answer is they can never reach that level. they will never be accepted. it will not be -- never be part of our energy strategy. it will never lead america to be independent from every place else in the world. all you have to ask yourself is what in the world are we doing to the people we represent? this is not a republican strategy or a democratic strategy, this is an american strategy. if it's truly about energy and creating jobs and protecting our environment, it's all there, gentlemen. and it's been there for years. why would the administration spend $10 million to get an answer that didn't comply with what they thought it was going to be? so automatically the answer has to be these folks didn't do the test the right way they didn't come up with the results we needed. so we have to get rid of them and get somebody else in here. gentlemen, the lights are going out across this country. our position in the world is being challenged right now. in a country that has been so blessed for so long with

abundant, affordable and accessible energy. and to sit by and say, you know what, they're getting better but they're never going to be good enough for us, they're just never going to quite reach that metric that they have to reach, in fact, the bottle of water the gentleman just showed, i have to tell you. take a bottle of figi water off the shelf, it won't comply either. we have to ask ourself, where is it they're going with this? is this way to prop up an agenda by the administration? or is this a way to prop up the american success story? are get going to go forward and truly achieve independence from energy from anyplace else in the world other than our own, or are we going to continue to fight over things that don't make sense to the american people but somehow make sense in this house? listen, what we're doing today just makes sense. we've already run the traps on it. we've already run the tests. we've done all the metrics. coal is good for america. coal has always been good for america. coal has cleaned itself up incredibly and will continue to do so. these are the most responsible people.

i would invite some of my friends who have never been in a coal mine, travel with me to western pennsylvania, go down in the bailey mine, go down 700 feet and see how they're mining coal today and see how they're scrubbing coal and then say to me they're not doing it the right way. . let's take a real good look at this what we are doing. in a country so badly now looking for leadership across all phases so we can retain our position in the world, let's take a look where we are today with this coal strategy. if it's truly a war on coal and one we want win, i say that's not why we came here. i strongly urge the passage of 2824, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: mr. chairman, i'd like to recognize a member of this body who has been a leader on countless environmental issues, my friend from virginia, who knows the harmful effects that mountaintop removal mining has had in his own state and

throughout the appalachian region. mr. moran from virginia. the chair: how much time? mr. holt: two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. moran: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank my very good friend from new jersey and arizona for yielding to me because i do rise in opposition to this so-called preventing government waste and protecting coal mining jobs in america. i know that's what this bill sponsors have tried to suggest, but the fact is that this promotes destructive mountaintop mining removal and it doesn't protect jobs. the goal of this bill is to require all states to incorporate a now vacated 2008 rule that was issued in the very last days of the bush administration and then was struck down by a u.s. federal court. it was an 11th hour regulation that was designed to repeal

reagan-era protections for streams and waterways from the impacts of mountaintop mining by providing a buffer zone for waste disposal. it was vage and permissive language. sets an alarmingly low bar when it comes to protecting communities and wildlife habitats near mountaintop operations. the reality is this midnight rule making would only hasten further environmental destruction and increase the volume of toxic chemicals entering our water supply. this bill before the house represents a transparent attempt to resurrect an already rejected rule by forcibly enacting it across this country, thereby putting communities near coal mining plants at risk while undoing necessary protections from pollutants. but in addition to resurrecting this stream buffer zone rule, it comes with a five-year mandatory implementation period that

conveniently prohibits the department of the interior from issuing new regulations to protect streams. so the public should be deeply troubled by what is a blatant disregard of public health. americans living near coal mining operations are going to be harmed by this. our legal process is jeopardized and certainly the integrity of all fragile ecosystems. may i have another minute? i thank my good friend. environmental impact statement found that between 1985 and 19 -- 2002, nearly 2,000 miles of streams were buried or destroyed by mountaintop removal. not surprisingly pier reviewed scientific studies continued to confirm the devastation on the surrounding environment and wildlife habitats of the numerous toxic chemicals like arsenic and mercury that enter into streams as mountaintops are blasted and bulldozed away.

we found in a 2011 study cancer rates were twice as high in communities exposed to the effects of mountaintop mining. in the journal science we found likewise chronic pulmonary disorders in coal country. births in appalachia from 1996 to 2003 had substantially higher rates of multiple types of birth defects. congress should welcome regulation that is are going to save and enhance american lives not put them in jeopardy. unfortunately this bill gives a green light to remove mountain summit and dump their waste into nearby valleys and streams. the fact is that coal has been the mainstay of appalachia's economy for more than 100 years but yet to make the region prosperous. we are talking about jobs. we need healthy people and healthier environments. i urge a rejection of this legislation. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from

louisiana, mr. scalise. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate my colleague yielding. rise in strong support of the preventing government waste and protecting coal mining jobs in america act by my colleague from ohio. mr. chairman, there is a war on coal by the obama administration. it's being carried out every day throughout this country in many ways through rules and regulations imposed by radical agencies like the e.p.a. what we are doing here is pushing back and saying enough is enough. stop killing jobs in america, mr. president. stop increasing energy costs for american families. hardworking taxpayers who are strullinging in this bad economy. the president continues to pursue in this global warming agenda, it's snowing outside the capitol right now as we speak in support of this bill. they are still talking about global warming and imposing more regulations that are killing, killing americans jobs. if you look at the sue and settle process that brought us to this point that really is the

reason behind legislation like the bill we are bringing up today, the sue and settle process that the obama administration is using through agencies like the e.p.a. in this case has resulted in 7,000 lost jobs. and is wreaking havoc in 22 states. just one rule, this isn't a bill that was passed through congress. the president loves bragging about he's got a pen and phone. yet he's using federal agencies, not law, passed by the people's house, debated in the open public view behind closed doors they are going and trying to impose these radical regulations that are killing jobs in america. the president's going to spend days and days on the campaign trail, campaign trail that never ends. he never leads and governs. he runs around campaigning and his latest is talk about employment benefits. mr. chairman, the best unemployment benefit is a good job. american people don't want to be getting unemployment checks from the federal government. they want jobs. yet this administration through its war on coal and so many other radical regulations are killing jobs in america.

enough is enough, this legislation helps to undo the damage that president obama's radical policies are wreaking through our economy. again i commend my colleague from ohio for bringing this legislation forward. i think we'll see a very strong bipartisan support -- vote in support of helping get jobs back in our economy. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. holt: mr. chairman, i'm like to recognize my good friend and colleague from the natural resources committee, who has been a leader on standards and enforcement in mining and who knows as well as anyone the time and energy that has been wasted in the committee's investigation of this stream protection rule. time that could have been spent protecting the environment and people's health. mr. grijalva from arizona. the chair: how much time? mr. holt: two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for two minutes. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. let me thank my colleague from new jersey for yielding me the

time. mr. speaker, it's our responsibility, our sung guelar responsibility as members of congress to protect the health and well-being of the american people. voting yes to this legislation would do just the opposite. h.r. 2824 is not only poisonous to our pristine rivers and waterways, but harmful to the health and women being of the american people. h.r. 2824 is wrong at many levels. first it seeks to lock in a 2008 bush administration rule that virtually eliminates the buffer zone protecting streams from mine waste. just last month a federal court ruled that the 2008 rule that this legislation seeks to lock in was unflaul because it risked the federally protected endangered and threatened species. the problem with this bill isn't just limited to endangered and threatened species t violates the purposes and objectives of the clean water act and those of the surface mining control and reclamation act to minimize harm

from surface mining. these are a fuel laws and regulations to protect rivers and waterways in our communities and ultimately ensuring public health and well-being. h.r. 2824 is about eliminating our environmental safeguards and deteriorating our public health to provide legal loopholes for private mining companies. the effect of polluted waterways to our communities is catastrophic and costly. this year we have witness add few incidents already -- we have already witness add few incidents. first the chemical spill in west virginia in january, then the coal spill in north carolina if february. while both these incidents remain unsolved and being investigated, they have forced tens of thousands of residents to go without clean and safe water for weeks and this legislation seeks to grant immunity to those violations. the bill not only -- will not only pollute more rivers and waterways and risk millions of americans their ability to be

with clean and waive satter, worse it will poison millions of americans. the question i want to ask my colleagues in this chamber is that what you kind -- is that the kind of government we are? with that i urge members who care about its people to oppose the legislation. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to yield two minutes again to the chairman of the subcommittee dealing with this legislation, mr. lamborn. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. mr. lamborn: i thank the full committee chairman. mr. chairman, my colleagues on the other side seem to continue living in the past. this bill isn't about the bush administration. this bill is about the rampant failure of the obama administration's and its inability to craft a reasonable rule on coal mining. they have spent five years, nearly $10 million on this rewrite, for what? what have they produced? absolutely nothing. their waste ridden failed effort is apparently nothing more than a sham facade over a real

agenda, to kill coal mining. you don't have to take my word for it. this is a direct quote from an inspector general's investigators' interview with the current d.o.i. contractor working on the rule, she said, the rule appears to be, quote, an effort to kill coal mining. an effort to kill coal mining. also, the department has continued to insist on falsifying the baseline to reduce the stated impacts of the rule making. as you can see from the interview with current contractor over here, they continue to insist that companies use the more restrictive but never implemented 2008 rule as a baseline to -- in an effort to hide the real economic impacts of whatever rule they want to come up with. again, don't take my word for it. right here o.s.m.'s own contractor says that by using the more restrictive 2008 rule they will show fewer job losses. that is our choice today. a rule fine-tuned over five

years with a clear process for future rule making and certainty for jobs and affordable energy which we have now, or if we follow this path, a continued waste of taxpayer dollars to pursue an agenda to kill coal mining. i choose jobs and affordable energy for american families. please support h.r. 2824. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: i ask the chair how many minutes remain on each side. the chair: the gentleman from washington has six minutes remaining. and the gentleman from -- the gentleman from new jersey has six minutes remaining. the gentleman from washington has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. holt: thank you. i yield myself such time as i may use, then. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. holt: this is an actual photograph of actual water coming from an actual

mountaintop removal site. i hope that the camera captures the color of the green hills that used to be there and the orange water that is there now. a stream this orange might be good for dying easter eggs but not for drinking. now, earlier i refrd to the studies by scientists that a -- referred to the studies by scientists that associated hospitalizations with these activities. i referred to hospitalizations, hypertension, lung cancer, heart disease, kidney disease, increased flooding, loss of habitat, damage to wildlife. the other side, the majority, keeps wanting to talk about procedures. so let's talk about procedures for just a moment. the record is clear these are the words of the federal district court. the record is clear, the 2008

rule may affect, threaten, or endangered species or critical habitat. thiser, the court goes on, s a -- the errors in this rule constitute a, in their words, serious deficiency and not nearly a procedural defect. . mountain top removal mining is a serious threat in appalachia. that's what we should be talking about today. not about creating legislation that will deem reality to be different than it actually is. that will declare this stream clear flowing. that will declare these mountains green and verdent. that will declare that the

endangered species act was observed when it wasn't. that will declare that this rule will protect the environment and human health when it won't. no amount of legislative eming will make this reality change. what will make this reality ange would be good, strong regulations with good, strong information, with an emphasis not on speed and cheapness, but on people's health and an environment that can sustain us. that's what we should be talking about. i urge -- i reserve any remaining time i have. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm very pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from indiana, mr. stutzman. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for one

minute. stitsstits thank you, mr. chairman. i come -- mr. stutzman: thank you, mr. chairman. i come to the floor to support h.r. 2824, the preventing government waste and protecting jobs in america act. i thank my colleagues, congressman johnson and chairman doc hastings, for their hard work and leadership on this very important issue. the obama administration has consistently put mandates ahead of jobs and energy security. instead of promoting the american-made energy that powers our factories, small businesses, warehouses and offices, washington bureaucrats have wasted nearly $10 million to overhaul coal mining regulations. three years ago the obama administration's own experts estimated that these unnecessary and sweeping changes could kill 7,000 jobs. the urge to issue mandates was too strong and instead of listening to reason, the administration fired its own advisors and kept on pressing. that's no way to promote economic recovery. mr. chairman, today's legislation would halt the obama administration's

haphazard and disastrous rulemaking. hoosiers deserve an all-of-the-above energy plan, not a red-tape agenda. so i would urge my colleagues to support this legislation and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon, a most thoughtful and strong spokesperson on protecting our environment and people's health, mr. blumenauer. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for tpwhoins. mr. blumenauer: thank you. i appreciate -- for twomans -- for two minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you. there's nothing here in terms of what the administration has done that is ill considered or reckless. i am sorry that there is opposition to protections that were put in place by the reagan administration dealing with stream before yous. simple -- buffers.

simple, common sense, which would indeed merit the support by virtually all of our colleagues. we have seen that the last-minute efforts by the bush administration to circumvent protections for mountain top removal were rejected by the courts because they did not deal adequately with the requirements of the endangered species act. we are still facing the specter of taking the debris from mountain top removal mining and putting it in our streams and waterways. and we would sentence our states to be able to not -- not be able to put in place more effective and stringent protections if they wanted to, but force them to follow this tdated and rejected proposal and wait until 2021 to be able to move forward.

mr. speaker, this is an expression i think of frustration on the part of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle for the fact that they are on the wrong side of history, they're on the wrong side of science, they're on the wrong side of public opinion. and simply declaring that the administration is out of control or e.p.a. is overreaching or there's a war on coal doesn't make it so. people can see for themselves the devastation from mountain top removal and the fact that we have been negligent as a country for years, providing adequate protections -- for years providing adequate protections. i would hope that the chamber sees fit to reject legislation that's not going anyplace, and that we stop the charade of initiatives that are -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. blumenauer: i have 15 more seconds? mr. holt: i yield the gentleman 15 more seconds. mr. blumenauer: that stops

conjuring up imaginary threats when we're not focusing on the clear and present dangers to the environment now, to community protection for health . reject this legislation and then let's get down to business on things that really will make a difference and we can agree upon. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i would advise my friend from new jersey, i'm prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close. mr. holt: i'm prepared to close. i'll claim my time. mr. hastings: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. holt: i thank the chairman. the other side speaks about technicalities. is it a technicality to fail to consider the negative impact on the wildlife and the environment? is it a technicality to ignore the harmful health effects? is it a technicality that allows us to sacrifice people's clean drinking water so that large mining companies can save

a few dollars as they blow up a mountain? no, these are not technicalities. in fact, the u.s. district court a few weeks ago made it clear these were not technicalities. i will repeat in their words, the way this was put together is a serious deficiency and not merely a strictly procedural defect. that's why the rule is vacated by the court. we should not be imposing that now. we should be looking after the health of our environment and the health of the people we represent here -- we were sent here to represent. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, how much time do i have on my side? the chair: the gentleman has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. hastings: i yield myself the balance of the time. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, to hear my friends on the other side of the aisle argue about this, they're making arpgments that are pre-1977 -- arguments that are pre-1977. why do i say that? because they're talking about their perception of mountain top mining or surface mining

probably in general. well, it's precisely that argument that led to the surface mining control and reclamation act of 1977. under the carter administration, with the democrat congress, i might add. so, that bill passed to allow for surface mining. now, there's always necessary rulemaking that comes after that and the latest rulemaking, prior to this entry, was in 1983 under the reagan administration. so, the bush administration looked, because of some court tests, that maybe we ought to rewrite this rule. and, mr. chairman, contrary to what my friendses on the other side of the aisle said, that that was a late-breaking rule, it took five years to put that together. five years to put that together. and so as a result, because of this court decision that ended up vacating because of the technicality of the 2008 rule, the issue before us is this. do we put the 2008 rule in place, which is what the focus of this legislation is, and then look forward to further rulemaking, or do we vacate the

2008 rule and go back to 1983? that's what the choice is. and what i find so interesting about my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is that everybody acknowledges the 2008 rule is more restrictive, more restrictive but they want to go back to 1983 rule. i find that hard to understand, but at least that's what it a-- what appears to be their argument. so, mr. chairman, we think the responsible way to do this is take into consideration what the bush administration did for five years, looking at proper rulemaking that by the way looked into the endangered species act. that's something the 1983 rule did not look at at all. so we think that's a better way, to put that in place right now, a more restrictive rule that industry understands, the states understand and is probably better for energy certainty in this country. so i urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields

back the balance of his time. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule it. shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 113-31 modified by the amendment, prinltsed in house report a -- printed in house report a. that amendment shall be considered as read. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part b of the report. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the romp, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shat not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject for demand of division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in art b of house report 113-374. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek

recognition? mr. lowenthal: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 113-374 offered by mr. lowenthal of california. the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. lowenthal, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. lowenthal: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, my amendment is about protecting the health of those americans who live near mountain top removal coal mines. it's about keeping surface water from being contaminated. it's about keeping drinking water from being contaminated. and my amendment is about reducing the risk of cancer, birth defects, lung disease and heart disease for families living near coal mines. mr. speaker, all of these health problems have been con cluesively linked to the mine

-- conclusively linked to mountain top stream beds. the peer-review journal in science published an article entitled "mountain top mining consequence" "and in that article, the authors who are a dozen scientists from institutions across the country, concluded that adult hospitalizations for chronic pullmynary disorder and hypertension are elevated as a result of county level coal production, as are rates of mortality, lung cancer, chronic heart, lung and kidney disease. health problems are for women and men. so the effects are not simply the result of direct poseure -- ex exposure of predominantly male coal miners. in 1983 the ronald reagan administration completed rules that kept coal mining companies from dumping their overburden directly into streams. the rules required a before you of 100 feet around waterways.

the reagan rule also allowed states to promulgate more protective rules, effectively creating a federal floor of protection against stream contamination. right now the reagan rule is the regulation that the office of surface mining reclamation and enforcement is operating under. and my amendment would keep the reagan rule in effect. so what does the majority bill do? it wipes away the reagan rule, enforces -- and forces all states to adopt the 2008 bush stream before you rule. instead of protect -- buffer rule. instead of protecting streams, the bush rule is a blank check for mining companies to dump their overburden directly into waterways. that's right. the bush rule referenced in this bill has the gaping loophole that allows mining companies to dump mine waste into streams if avoiding disturbance of the stream is not reasonably possible.

and how is reasonable to be interpreted by the agency? very loosely. an alternative to dumping wine waste into streams generally may be considered unreasonable according to the agency if its costs is substantially greater than the cost normally associated with this type of project. well, of course it's cheaper to dump mine waste into a nearby stream bet than properly treat and remove it elsewhere. thus, given the agency's criteria, it will always be found cheaper and reasonable to dump coal mine waste into streams. but it gets even better, mr. speaker. this is the same bush rule that was struck down by the d.c. court circuit court justice last month. and it's the same bush rule that is really against the states' ability to promulgate stronger rules because it creates a ceiling that no state can exceed. mr. speaker, my amendment would

simply return to the reagan rule and to protect the health of families living near coal mines. i urge support of my amendment, mr. speaker, how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentleman has 1 1/4 minutes remaining. mr. lowenthal: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: i yield myself as up time as i may consume. . mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. i find it hard to listen sometimes to this debate, especially when i hear my good friends on the other side of the aisle defending anything that the reagan administration did. but they are doing it, and so i'll acknowledge there's some substance there. but let me just go back to what i mentioned in my closing arguments. smcra was passed in 1977. the reagan rule making was six years after that. so there hasn't been an update

on that rule -- right now for 30 years. but it was more than likely probably 20 years when the bush administration thought it should be updated. i'm going to get right to the heart of the matter. the reason why the environmental community does not like the 2008 1983 nstead ont for the reagan rule -- opt for the 1983 reagan rule. they don't like it because the 2008 rule will provide clarity and certainty in the smcra process which, of course, will free up job creation and meaning there is going to be some certainty in coal production. rather the environmental community would like to use loopholes that they found in the 1983 rule making to take team to court. -- take people to court. that's exactly why from my perspective that this amendment is offered to go back to the reagan time so that there can be probably more litigation and

less certainty in rule making of surface mining. the gentleman mentioned, for example, the 100-foot buffer zone. the bush rule has 100-foot buffer zone just like the reagan rule. nothing changed there. what only changes in the long run in rule making is certainty. those that like to go to court don't like certainty. that is why i believe we have this improbable defense of anything that reagan did because they see that over a period of time there are ways that you could manipulate that to their advantage. i think the bush rule, by the way, which i have said several times, and even acknowledged on -- from the coal mining industry, that it is more restrictive but has more certainty into it is a better model. and that's precisely what this legislation does. it takes us to the 2008 rule.

this amendment would take us back to the 1983 rule. i don't think that is the proper way to go, and i would urge rejection of this amendment and i reserve my time. quoip the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from -- the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. lowenthal: i yield myself such time as i may consume. before i yield to my friend from pennsylvania, i want to respond to one thing that was just said. the 2008 bush rule is not more protective than the 1983 reagan rule. i have explained that. the 2008 bush rule has huge exemptions within it. and that is why it is important that we go back and we adopt my amendment to take us back to the reasonable 1983 reagan rule. now, i yield the remaining time that i have to the gentleman from pennsylvania. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for 45 seconds. >> i thank the gentleman from

california for yielding. i rise in support of the amendment by my colleague from california, mr. lowenthal, which seeks to reinstate this 1983 stream buffer rule while the reagan administration rule is not perfect, the 2008 bush rule inserted unnecessary loopholes in the law and takes us in the wrong direction. mr. cartwright: this commonsense lowenthal amendment from the natural resources committee would simply keep the best option we currently have in place instead of forcing the adoption of the 2008 rule which the courts have already struck down. thus i urge my colleagues to support the lowenthal amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. ll time has expired. mr. hastings: the time of the gentleman from california has expired. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: very briefly. maybe we were caught here in semantics. but the issue i have said

several times and it has been acknowledged that the 2008 rule is more restrictive. my friend on the other side of the aisle and the author of the amendment said let be -- let me be clear, the 2008 rule is not as protective. i think when we are talking about protecting the environment that restrictive and protective are probably synonymous in nature. when we hear statements made by the industry that the 2008 rule is more restrictive, i take them at their word. but, mr. chairman, i have to make this point, and this point is very important. because we need to have a certainty supply of energy in this country if we are going to have to have a growing economy. i'm in favor of all of the above. that certainly includes coal. unless you have certainty in the regulations, you will not have an energy source. as i said right from the start, many have acknowledged within the administration that this administration has a war on

coal, this provides certainty. it's contrary to where the administration wants to go because it does provide certainty with our energy production. i would urge rejection of this amendment which would take us back to a rule that would be more potentially lit gus in nature to something that has certainty. with that i urge rejection of the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time on the amendment has expired. the question son the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. lowenthal: i request a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman requests a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will e postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 113-374. for what purpose does the

gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. cartwright:00 i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the -- designated the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2, printed in part b of house report number 113-374, offered by mr. cartwright of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 501, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. cartwright, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. cartwright: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cartwright: the underlying bill i seek to amend has been labeled today as the preventing government waste and protecting coal mining jobs in america bill. the true label for this bill ought to be the no streams protection bill. mountaintop removal coal mining is a process that has buried over 2,000 miles of streams throughout appalachia, contaminating surface and drinking water, and destroying wildlife in appalachia communities. the practice is currently governed by a rule written by

the reagan administration, reagan rule needs to be updated and this is what the obama administration wants to set about doing. h.r. 2824 seeks to accomplish two things, one, to write into statute a stream buffer rule promulgated in december of 2008 by the bush administration, and then to prohibit the obama administration from working on writing a new stream buffer rule for at least five years while precluding the states also from issuing their own more stringent rules. members ought to be aware that the federal district court for the district of colombia handed down a decision on february 20 just last month, vacating the 2008 rule because the bush administration refused to consider the impacts of coal mining on threatened or endangered species in writing the rule. as a result, the rule this bill would write into statute no longer exists. it's also surprising that the republicans would enact a bill

that strong arms states into forcibly adopting a federal standard completely preempting states' rights to enact their own rules. that's why the amendment i'm offering today protects states' rights by ensuring that all states are able to implement a stream buffer rule that can go beyond the national floor. states ought to have the ability to protect their natural resources at a level beyond the requirements of the federal government when they see that need. my amendment ensuring that states maintain the ability to issue their own more stringent stream buffer rules which this legislation is attempting to prohibit. states should be able to maintain the ability to adequately protect their natural resources and help the safety of their local coal mining communities. safe drinking water should be a right for everybody and should not be subject to the federal loopholes this bill would insert. states should have the right to close loopholes as they see fit. now it's important to remember

that the amount of coal export interested this country is significant and growing. in fact, a record amount of coal was exported in 2012, over three times the amendment exported one decade earlier. we don't need to relax our environmental and health protections for this industry. we don't need to jeopardize the health of the people and the once pristine environment of appalachia for the profits of these companies. finally, the claim that the obama rule must be stopped because it is part of a so-called war on coal is obviously false. how can you make such a claim about a rule that doesn't even exist yet? this bill is simply an attempt to resurrect a flawed 2008 bush rule, rejected by a federal court and the administration, which provides loopholes to the industry. it's poor public policy and poor use of congress' time given the pressing needs of this country.

mr. speaker, my amendment protects states' rights from overreach by the federal government, protects appalachia communities, protects our environment, and protects clean drinking water. my amendment allows states to do better by their citizens if they so choose, and i believe that's a coal that everybody ought to agree upon. i urge members to vote for this amendment and at this point i ask how much time i have remaining, mr. chair? the chair: the gentleman has one minute remaining. mr. cartwright: at this point i'd like to yield to the gentleman from california, mr. lowenthal. the chair: mr. lowenthal is recognized for one minute. mr. lowenthal: thank you. and i thank the gentleman from pennsylvania for yielding. i strongly agree with my friend that states must be given the right to implement a stream buffer rule that works for them, given the fact that local conditions will vary from state to state. states, what we are saying is,

they should have the ability to protect their natural resources at a level beyond the requirements of the federal government when they see the need. what we are saying is the federal government sets a floor and the states have a right to protect their citizens from public health crisis and illness by setting their own requirements. h.r. 2824 keeps the states from tailoring stream safeguards and requires the states to waste taxpayers' dollars by adopting a vacated by a en federal court. mr. speaker, for these reasons i urge support of the cartwright amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: i understand all time on the proponents of the amendment has expired. the chair: that's correct. mr. hastings: i rise in opposition to the amendment and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, before i speak directly to why we should not adopt this amendment, let me respond to the rhetorical question that my friend from pennsylvania said when he said, how can you say that this administration rule which hasn't been promulgated would cost jobs? i would, mr. chairman, tell my friend that there were leaked documents of the first initial rewrite of the 2008 amendment, leaked documents that said that the contractor that was hired by the administration to rewrite the rule came back with a conclusion that 7,000 jobs would be lost in 22 states. so what was the response of the obama administration? they fired the contractor. it was the wrong message. now, they are still in the rule making process. mr. chairman, i have to tell you, i doubt that the philosophy has changed because they are trying to manipulate which rule to follow to minimize what we

found out the initial go around. let me just talk about this amendment. this amendment is not only unnecessary, it's actually harmful to protecting states' rights. nder smcra, of 1977, state regulations have -- this is under the law in 1977, state regulations have to meet or exceed the new regulation issued by the office of surface mining. the gentleman's amendment would eliminate the ability of states to beat these rules by mandating that states can only exceed o.s.m. rules. this both ignores the history of federal state relations with regard to rule making, but also the need for flexibility in the states to meet the o.s.m. rules while protecting their only geology, high drolgirks and community interest. again, states have the ability to change regulations to meet or exceed federal rules under already -- already with regards to the all aspects under smcra.

we should not limit the ability to have flexibility in meeting the new rules. this amendment would mandate that you could only change that by increasing. i think, mr. chairman, that's the wrong way to go. i think the amendment is ill-advised. i urge rejection of the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time on the amendment has expired. the question sont amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part b of house report 113-374 on which proceedings were