Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. I think it adds a great deal to all the work that you and your bipartisan cosponsors had put into this, and I support the amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chair, I just want to make a point because at the end of the general debate, I brought up the issue of NEPA that everybody says this is a wonderful bill except this part. Of course, the gentlelady's amendment strikes the NEPA waiver, which I pointed out again at the end of the general debate there seems to be somewhat cause and effect of having NEPA and having projects go forward. But here is the important point on this, Madam Chairman, from my point of view: this bill deals with the Bureau of Reclamation, the Bureau of Reclamation that built ditches and conduits out of concrete generally. Again, I spoke of the Columbia Basin Project in my district and the Yakima Project in my district, and virtually all of the ditches are concrete. That means that the land has already been disturbed in order to put these facilities in place. What the gentleman from Colorado's bill does is simply put a power source within the existing ditches that have gone through environmental review. Why, for goodness' sakes, would you have to jump through more hoops, unless you wanted to slow the process down? Why you'd want to do that, I don't know, because the end result of this is probably less expensive energy. It's certainly American jobs, and it probably adds to a growing economy. Yet there seems to be some idea that only NEPA can save us from all of that. Well, I reject that, and that's why I oppose the gentlelady's amendment because it would waive that requirement. Once again, Madam Chairman, this is on existing facilities that have gone through environmental review. It doesn't need to jump through that hoop one more time. With that, I urge opposition to this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding. As you say, I think this is a technical amendment. It adds to the bill, and I support it.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, during the course of debate today, it was mentioned several times--which of course is true--that virtually identical legislation passed in the last Congress with bipartisan support. I find it rather ironic that the author of this motion to recommit last year voted for this bill without the motion to recommit language in it. So I think we have some common ground and we're making some progress, and I thank the gentleman for his vote on that. But let's talk about what this bill does. This bill takes existing American facilities, like irrigation ditches, and says, my goodness, water running downhill has a sense of energy to it; we ought to somehow capture that energy. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton) says: Why don't we put turbines in there and create American energy? Wonderful idea. So that's what this bill is all about. Nothing in this bill prevents anything that the gentleman is proposing in his motion to recommit. But I will just close by saying what this bill really does and what the essence of what we're talking about here today. This bill creates American jobs and American energy at no cost to the taxpayer. What else is there to say? Vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. The gentleman had 5 minutes to make his case. No, I will not yield to the gentleman. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, during my service in Congress representing Central Washington, I have always voted to renew the Violence Against Women Act. As a husband, a father, and a grandfather, I strongly believe that providing protection for all women against domestic violence is a duty and a priority. Yet I am deeply dismayed by the manner in which the current reauthorization of this legislation (S. 47), which has long been a simple grant program, has been hijacked in order to pursue unrelated political agendas in very harsh politicized terms. To be blunt, the bill is simply unconstitutional. The Indian tribal provisions of S. 47 are the first time in the history of our country that Congress will give tribes criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. The provisions, found in sections 904 and 905, declare that a tribe's power of self-government includes the ``inherent'' power of that tribe to exercise jurisdiction over all persons, including non-Indians. As I've said, these provisions are unconstitutional and contradict over two centuries of law. There are three fundamental principles underlying how Congress may deal with Indian tribes. First, the Indian Commerce Clause, supplemented by the treaty making powers in the Constitution, give Congress what the Supreme Court has said is ``plenary'' power over Indian affairs. Second, tribes are defined by the Indian status of their members. Third, when tribes were brought under the jurisdiction of the United States through actc, treaties, and Executive Orders, they have been recognized for the purpose of self-government over their internal affairs and members. Congress may recognize, or terminate, tribes. With these principles in mind, it is clear that the Indian tribal provisions of the Senate bill are unconstitutional. The measures put a non-Indian American citizen--on American soil--under the criminal jurisdiction of a political entity to which the individual, because of his race, may not consent. It violates the founding principle of this Republic, which is a government only at the consent of the governed. The bill overturns all precedents set by Congress and the Supreme Court through its extension of a unique, self-governing power over internal affairs of a race of people, into a territorial government over everyone. The Supreme Court has long held that because tribes are not parties to the Constitution, the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, do not apply to tribes. In tribal court, an individual only has something called the Indian Civil Rights Act. This provides a set of similar--but not identical-- rights as the Bill of Rights. They may be amended or repealed by mere Act of Congress. Even if the rights were meaningful, however, the Supreme Court in 1978 said these statutory rights are unenforceable in federal court. Does S. 47 provide a defendant with the right to appeal a tribal judgment and conviction in federal court? No, it does not. Section 904 of S. 47 openly allows discrimination against an individual based on race, sex, age, or if he's an Indian, who he's related to. Where the person's an American citizen, can be expelled from their home and may not have any right to appeal a claim in an impartial federal court. As a result, enactment of Section 904 will be the first time that Congress has purposefully removed a U.S. citizen's constitutional rights while on American soil so that a political entity defined according to ethnic ancestry may arrest, try, and punish the citizen. If these arguments do not sound familiar to all, it will be to those who have studied the pertinent case law and Supreme Court precedent from the 18th century to present. Beginning in modern times with Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, the Supreme Court held that tribes lack inherent jurisdiction over non- Indians. Congress cannot recognize and affirm an inherent--that is to say a pre-existing and continuing--power in a tribe when the Supreme Court ruled the tribe never had it. There's Duro v. Reina, in which the High Court held that Indian tribes lack jurisdiction over non-member Indians. In the 19th century, the Supreme Court in United States v. Kagama declared there are only two sovereigns in the geographical limits of the United States, and tribes are not one of them. Case law, statutes, treaties, and historic dealings with Indian tribes support the sole purpose of federal Indian law and policy: to permit a racially defined group of people who were here first to continue their unique way of life according to their own customs, without interference from others. This is an honorable and morally correct policy, one which I respect and uphold. This is why I cosponsored legislation to exempt tribes from a federal law permitting compulsory union work places on the reservation, and supported exempting tribes from the Department of the Interior's onerous hydraulic fracturing rule, a rule that could devastate the economies of historically impoverished tribes. For further clarification, let us examine the work of the distinguished former Democrat Chairman of the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs, the late Lloyd Meeds of Washington. Chairman Meeds wrote that tribal powers ``have over and again been labeled self-government and not sovereignty. It is one thing for the Congress to permit tribal Indians to govern themselves and not be subject to Federal constitutional limitations and general Federal supervision. It is quite another thing for Congress to permit Indian tribes to function as general governmental entities not subject to Federal constitutional limitations or general Federal supervisions.'' (Separate Dissenting Views of Congressman Lloyd Meeds, D-Washington, Vice Chairman of the American Indian Policy Review Commission, Final Report, p. 579.) ``[T]he American people have not surrendered to Indians the power of general government; Indians are given only a power of self-government. They have the power to regulate only their members and the property of their members. They have some governmental powers because and to the extent that such powers are appropriate to the Federal policy of allowing Indian peoples to control their own affairs. But there is no Federal policy of allowing Indian peoples to control the liberty and property of non-members. Tribal powers of self-government are limited by their purpose.'' (Ibid, p. 585). Our Nation has appropriately recognized Indian tribes' right of self- government. Tribal self-government over Indians and their internal affairs is important and should be respected. Yet self-government does not and should not permit Indian tribal actions to trump the Constitution or violate individual rights of non-Indians. With the precedent being set under S. 47, tribes will return to Congress for more, expanded power over non-Indians. There would be no reason to deny granting such power, especially if the Constitution continues to be viewed as an obstacle to addressing crime. It is important to be clear about the scope of a tribe's criminal jurisdiction granted under S. 47. It affects non-Indians who live, work, or travel on 56 million acres of U.S. soil that happen to be called Indian Country. In other words, the bill makes 56 million acres of land in our nation ``Constitution-Free Zones'' where Due Process and Equal Protection rights--as interpreted and enforced in U.S. courts--do not exist. What are these areas? There is a misconception that Indian Country is just tribal trust land. In fact, the term Indian Country has a precise meaning under Title 18 of the U.S. Code. Indian Country includes not just land under tribal jurisdiction, but all private lands and rights-of-way within the limits of every Indian reservation under non-Indian jurisdiction. Homes, farms, schools, businesses. Interstate highways, state roads, and secondary roads. All private, non-Indian lands in Indian Country under the Senate bill are Constitution-Free Zones. There are incorporated non-Indian cities and towns in many reservations and Indian Country, like Wapato and Toppenish on the Yakama Reservation in my district. Take the Puyallup Indian Reservation in Washington state encompassing parts of Tacoma and Fife. With one of the busiest highways in the nation, Interstate 5, crossing the reservation, the ancient reservation is inhabited primarily by non- Indians living and working and going to school on mostly non-Indian land under the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the State. Under the Senate bill, this region is Indian Country on which the tribe may exercise criminal jurisdiction with no Due Process and Equal Protection rights guaranteed to the people living there. Under a land claim settlement, taxpayers paid $162 million to the tribe in exchange for the tribe ceding most authority over its reservation. However, the ``notwithstanding any other provision of law'' language in the Senate bill trumps and overrides the land claim agreement. Take the Coachella Valley in the State of California, with a number of checker-boarded Indian reservations containing non-Indian populations. Tribes in this Valley will get criminal jurisdiction over residents in towns and cities such as Palm Springs for offenses described in Section 904 of the Senate bill. In tribal court, the residents of the Coachella Valley will not have their Due Process and Equal Protection rights. Take the Oneida Reservation in New York that encompasses about 300,000 acres, 99 percent of which is non-Indian land with non-Indian towns and farms. Under the Senate bill, the tribe will have full powers to arrest, prosecute, and jail residents of Madison and Oneida counties for the offenses described in this bill, with no Due Process or Equal Protection rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The validity of sections 904 and 905 of S. 47 will eventually come before the Supreme Court. When this happens, it won't be a question of whether these provisions are struck down, but how many other tribal powers will be rolled back, and how many domestic violence offenders will be set free because of the misguided legislation before us. Some will say that critics of the Senate bill are interested only in the rights of criminal defendants. Then answer these questions: If Congress can justify stripping a citizen of their constitutional rights when accused of a crime, why can't it be justified for other classes of crime, like theft, felony assault, and murder? Why limit the suspension of the Constitution to Indian Country as defined under this bill? Why not create new Indian reservations so there are more Constitution-Free Zones where the Bill of Rights is not an impediment to law and order? While the House Substitute would delegate criminal jurisdiction to an Indian tribe over non-Indians, it at least guarantees that enforceable constitutional protections are built in so that it might pass muster in Court. The timing of the consideration of S. 47 is interesting. While proponents say that people have nothing to fear in tribal court, there is at least one tribe in the State of Oklahoma embroiled in litigation over its denial of tribal citizenship to the descendants of the African slaves the tribe's 19th-century members owned. There are also entire families of Indians in California dis-enrolled by their tribe in a dispute over large cash per capita dividends from the tribe's casino, who cannot get a federal court to review their Equal Protection claims. These cases are merely the latest example of several tribes wielding sovereign immunity to escape any liability for alleged harm caused by possibly depriving individuals--including their own members and ex- members--their constitutional rights. On the one hand, Indian tribes want criminal jurisdiction over individuals like the Freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes or the dis- enrolled Pechangas. On the other hand, they want to forbid these individuals from participating in the tribes' government. S. 47 makes more U.S. citizens like the disenfranchised Indians in California and the Freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes. It gives tribes the power to put people in jail while denying them a voice in the making of the laws that govern them. The tribal jurisdictional provisions must be rejected. Because of the historic policy change the House is poised to make today, it is necessary to elaborate on why the tribal provisions of S. 47 are unconstitutional and contrary to all precedent, if not common sense, in the United States' administration of federal Indian relations. Inherent Sovereignty For moral and public policy reasons, Congress rightfully recognizes Indian tribes as possessing powers of self-government over their internal affairs and members. Not being parties to the Constitution, Congress has tolerated--perhaps far too long--the power of a tribe to deprive its members' civil rights guaranteed in our country's supreme law. Because of this, Congress has enacted hundreds of laws since 1789 to protect Indians' unique status encroachment by states. At the same time, Congress has never--until today--allowed a tribe to claim power over a non-Indian. The scope and nature of a tribe's jurisdiction was delineated in Kagama: ``Indians are within the geographical limits of the United States. The soil and the people within these limits are under the political control of the Government of the United States or of the States of the Union. There exist within the broad domain of sovereignty but these two.'' (United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375, 379 (1886)). Tribal self-government is therefore not a general government power equivalent to that of a state, but a federal policy governed by Congress for the promotion of Indian self-determination and to preserve and advance their way of life. Tribal Jurisdiction over Individuals The reason why the tribal provisions of S. 47 should, I believe, be struck down is best described by the Supreme Court. ``The effort by Indian tribal courts to exercise criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians, however, is a relatively new phenomenon. And where the effort has been made in the past, it has been held that the jurisdiction did not exist.'' Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978). ``A tribe's additional authority comes from the consent of its members, and so, in the criminal sphere, membership marks the bounds of tribal authority.'' (Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990)). ``Retained criminal jurisdiction [of tribes] over members is accepted by our precedents and justified by the voluntary character of tribal membership and the concomitant right of participation in a tribal government, the authority of which rests on consent . . . With respect to such internal laws and usages, the tribes are left with broad freedom not enjoyed by any other governmental authority in this country . . . This is all the more reason to reject an extension of tribal authority over those who have not given the consent of the governed that provides a fundamental basis for power within our constitutional system.'' (Ibid). Proponents of Section 904 of S. 47 argue that tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians who cannot participate in tribal government is reasonable because it covers only a narrow class of domestic violence crimes, and it includes measures designed to protect a defendant's rights. These do nothing, however, to address the fact this scheme violates the Constitution. As pointed out in dissenting views filed in the Senate last year on these Indian tribal provisions (S. 1925 in the 112th Congress), ``While the present bill's jurisdiction is limited to domestic-violence offenses, once such an extension of jurisdiction were established, there would be no principled reason not to extend it to other offenses as well.'' In seeking to repeal Oliphant, advocates of the Senate language repeatedly rejected offers to increase law enforcement resources in Indian Country, including law enforcement personnel, funding, training, certification, cross-deputizing, and other tools for tribes, U.S. Attorneys, and State law enforcement agencies to arrest and prosecute men who harm Indian women in Indian Country. When the Supreme Court strikes down this bill, how will Indian women be protected given the rejection of law enforcement resources? This begs a question: since there has been a pressing need to address terrible domestic violence across Indian Country for many years, why did no Member of Congress or U.S. President propose to reverse Oliphant for 33 years? The first such proposal came in 2011, right after the House Democrats lost their majority in a landslide to Republicans, and a year before a presidential election where a political message often called the ``War on Women'' was developed? Is the proposed reversal of Oliphant a serious attempt to help Indian women who have been victimized? If it were, then Congress would not have let 35 years go by without proposing a jurisdictional change, including spans of time when advocates were in control of the White House and the Congress. It is abundantly clear the unconstitutional Oliphant reversal is not aimed at helping vulnerable Indian women. It is a political means to an ideological end, one that will ultimately backfire when it is struck down by the High Court, leaving Indian women unprotected because the advocates had rejected offers of increased federal and tribal law enforcement resources in Indian Country. United States v. Lara Advocates for inherent tribal power over non-Indians argue the Senate bill is permissible under the United States v. Lara. This reflects a common misunderstanding of Lara. This case concerned an Act of Congress to reverse Duro v. Reina. In the so-called Duro ``fix'', Congress gave tribes jurisdiction over non- member Indians (i.e. Indian individuals not members of the tribes exercising jurisdiction over them). In Lara, the question before the Court was whether Billy Jo Lara, an Indian man convicted by both a tribal court and a federal court for the same crime, had been twice put in jeopardy. Resolving this hinged on another question, the only one the Court considered: did the tribe's jurisdiction over Lara (authorized by the Duro ``fix'') result from the recognition of ``inherent authority'' or from a federal delegation of power? A majority of the Court held that the Duro ``fix'' law stemmed from an Act of Congress to recognize the inherent power of the tribe, not to delegate a federal power. As a result, Lara was not put twice in jeopardy because the tribe that convicted him did so as a separate sovereign, not as an agent of the federal government. Contrary to what tribal advocates have been arguing, the Supreme Court did not find the tribe's jurisdiction over Lara to be constitutional. Why? Because the Court declared it was not facing ``a question dealing with potential constitutional efforts to legislate far more radical changes in tribal status.'' (Majority opinion, U.S. v. Lara) The Court was not considering ``the question whether the Constitution's Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses prohibit tribes from prosecuting a nonmember citizen of the United States'' (Ibid). The reason why was because, as Anthony Kennedy's separate concurring opinion stresses, ``The proper occasion to test the legitimacy of the tribe's authority, that is, whether Congress had the power to do what it sought to do, was in the first, tribal proceeding. There, however, Lara made no objection to the tribe's authority to try him.'' (Kennedy concurring opinion). In other words, Billy Jo Lara waived any right to challenge the constitutionality of the tribe's criminal jurisdiction over him, a non-member Indian. The Court was reviewing only whether the federal government put him twice in jeopardy. Kennedy goes out of his way to cast doubt on the constitutionality of Congress recognizing tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians and over non- member Indians. ``[lit should not be doubted that what Congress has attempted to do is subject American citizens to the authority of an extraconstitutional sovereign to which they had not previously been subject.'' (Kennedy concurring opinion). Those who say the Supreme Court holding in Lara have probably not read it. Perhaps fittingly, Justice Kennedy was the lone dissent in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Oliphant, a dissent ultimately vindicated by the U.S. Supreme Court that Kennedy would years later join. In conclusion, S. 47 denies basic rights, is unconstitutional and will be tied up in court challenges for years.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I submit for publication the attached copy of the rules of the Committee on Natural Resources for the U.S. House of Representatives for the 113th Congress:

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 925) to designate Mt. Andrea Lawrence.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. S. 925 will designate an unnamed mountain near Yosemite National Park in California as Mt. Andrea Lawrence in honor of the late Olympic skier and local community leader in that area. Similar legislation passed the House by voice vote in the last Congress, legislation which was not taken up in the other body. I, once again, urge my colleagues to support this simple bill. Its companion measure in the House, I might add, is authored by our colleague from California (Mr. McKeon). With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, H.R. 6364 would authorize the World War I Memorial Foundation to create a commemorative work on federal land in the District of Columbia. From 1914 to 1918, World War I took 116,516 American lives. However, despite the existence of memorials to the fallen of World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War on the National Mall, a national WWI memorial has never been authorized. The author of this legislation, Mr. Poe, has worked for many years to construct a proposal that adequately recognizes Americans who served in the Great War and addresses the concerns of a multitude of stakeholders. This proposal is modest, will have a minimal footprint, and expressly prohibits federal funds. The memorial needs a specific exemption from current law to be permitted on the National Mall. This is not something this Congress should take lightly. The Natural Resources Committee held two hearings on this specific memorial and another hearing on the overall future of the National Mall to better understand the short-term and long-term implications of granting this authorization. As with other commemorative works, the World War I Memorial will pass through a rigorous, public approval process which may place it on the National Mall. However, it is not the intention to undermine the current prohibition under the Commemorative Works Act, but instead close the book on the collection of war memorials and proceed with a careful examination of what the future holds for the mall. To reiterate, approval of this legislation is not a signal that the Mall should be opened up for construction. The existing prohibition has served us well for the last decade and will serve us in the future. With this authorization we will raise the bar higher, even beyond the standard of the Great War.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And let me be the first here in this post session of Congress to say that this is the last session that our senior colleague from Washington (Mr. Dicks) will be serving, and he will be certainly missed. And I want to be the first to say that we will miss you here in this body. But when somebody leaves, somebody new comes in, albeit not the same district. Suzan, I want to welcome you to the Washington caucus. While we're a diverse State, as you well know, we have found that on issues we agree on, we work very, very well together, and we look forward to working with you. And I know that this is not your first run here, so I'll congratulate you more on the second run than the first run. Welcome to the Congress.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the 2013 National Principal of the Year, Principal Trevor Greene, from Toppenish High School in my Congressional District. Principal Greene is an outstanding school administrator and I am grateful for his leadership and dedication to the students and faculty at Toppenish High School. Four years ago, Principal Greene returned to the Yakima Indian Reservation, where he grew up, to serve as principal at Toppenish High. Once an underperforming school, Toppenish High has become a top performing institution whose successful model is followed by other schools in the region, thanks to the hard work of the staff under his leadership. Principal Greene energized Toppenish students and helped them gain the confidence needed to work harder and dream bigger. By implementing a rigorous science, technology, engineering and mathematics, STEM, education program and expanding academic opportunities to his students, test scores have improved by 67 percent and graduation rates are over 90 percent. At a time when the United States is falling behind in science and math, the Toppenish High STEM program continues to increase in popularity among students, with enrollment jumping by more than 100 students in just one school year. Students are receiving a high quality education and graduating with the resources and tools they need to succeed in college and beyond. Each year, MetLife Resources along with the National Association of Secondary School Principals Association, NASSP, selects one highly deserving principal from a pool of more than 100 middle and high school principals nationwide. These individuals, who have been nominated by their state, are highly successful at providing top-quality learning opportunities for students and have demonstrated commendable contributions to the profession. I am pleased that as a result of Principal Greene's selection as National Principal of the Year, Toppenish High School will receive a $5,000 school improvement grant from the Metlife Resources/NASSP National Principal of the Year program. We need more people like Principal Greene working to make a difference in our schools. I applaud his dedication to the students and faculty at Toppenish High School.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate the gentleman's amendment. I think it adds a great deal to this legislation. Too often, we overlook common sense, and that's precisely what the gentleman's amendment does, so I support his amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 3409.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in his 2008 campaign, President Obama plainly declared the policies he supports would bankrupt American coal production. Since taking office, the Obama administration has waged a multi-front war on coal, on coal jobs, on the small businesses in the mining supply chain, and on the low cost energy that millions of Americans rely on. Mr. Chairman, amazingly the Obama administration has repeatedly tried to deny that they've launched a war on coal, yet the facts are stubborn things. Just this week, Alpha Natural Resources announced the closure of 8 coal mines that will cost over 1,200 good-paying jobs. Aggressive regulations were specifically cited by the company for the closure of these mines. New regulations opposed by the Obama EPA threaten to shut down the Navajo Generating Station, a coal-fired power plant in Arizona. This would cost hundreds of jobs and eliminate millions of dollars in revenue for Navajo tribal economic development, education, and basic services. These lost jobs aren't random events. They are the direct result of the policies and actions of the Obama administration. These are the outcomes of their regulatory war on coal. For more than a year and a half, the Natural Resources Committee has been aggressively investigating one of the Obama administration's most covert but outrageous fronts in this war--a decision by the Interior Department to rapidly rewrite a regulation governing coal mining near streams. Within days of taking office, the Obama administration simply threw out the Stream Buffer Zone Rule that had undergone 5 years of environmental analysis and public review. They used a short-circuited process to hire a contractor to write this new regulation. When the news media revealed the official analysis of this rewrite and of the new Obama regulation showing that it would cost 7,000 jobs and cause economic harm in 22 States, the administration fired the contractor and continued to charged ahead. To date, the committee's investigation has exposed gross mismanagement of the rulemaking process, potential political interference, and the widespread economic harm this regulation would cause. The Interior Department refuses to comply with congressional subpoenas to produce documents and information that would fully reveal how and why this regulation was being rewritten. An interim report by the committee was issued today that details the specific findings and information uncovered in this investigation. The report is available at the committee's Web site at naturalresources .house.gov. Mr. Chairman, it's not a matter of if the new Obama regulation will be imposed, but when. Television cameras overheard President Obama whispering to the Russian Prime Minister that he will have more flexibility after the election. It doesn't take a canary in the coal mine--no pun intended--to figure out the Interior Department's new Stream Buffer Zone regulation on coal is being held back and concealed until after the November election, which is when this President would have more flexibility to unleash its job-destroying impacts. That's why Congress must act now to stop this. This new regulation must be halted. Title I of today's bill, the Stop the War on Coal Act, is authored by our colleague from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), and it prohibits the Obama administration from issuing this new regulation. It allows time to responsibly undertake an open, transparent rulemaking that fairly accounts for job and economic impacts. President Obama's war on coal is real. The lost jobs are already happening, and thousands more are at risk. Americans' energy costs are already too high, and the war on coal will drive them even higher. So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and from all regions in the country to support this bill and to stop these red tape attacks on American jobs and on American-made energy. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I would be more than happy to yield 3 minutes to the author of the legislation that is encompassed in title I of this bill, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).