Doug Lamborn

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the process of hydraulic fracturing, often used in combination with horizontal drilling, has unlocked vast new American energy resources, making the United States the largest energy producer in the world. This creates tens of thousands of good-paying jobs and lower energy prices for consumers. Despite this technological advancement, the Obama administration, acting through the Bureau of Land Management, has sought to regulate it out of existence by trying to institute new, onerous regulations regarding well construction and water management for hydraulic fracturing operations that take place on Federal and Indian lands. Thankfully, the U.S. District Court in Wyoming recently struck down BLM's hydraulic fracturing rule, finding that the BLM lacks authority from Congress to regulate the process of fracking, and was acting contrary to law. As expected, the Obama administration has filed an appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court. Despite being illegal, these burdensome regulations simply do not recognize the extensive work done by the States to regulate hydraulic fracturing within their borders. The Natural Resources Committee has heard from numerous witnesses from Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, and other States, who have testified to the tireless process these States went through to draft and implement their regulations--regulations that are very successful. My home State of Colorado has been safely using hydraulic fracturing for over 40 years, and has the toughest Hydraulic Fracturing Disclosure Rule in the Nation. Even our Democratic Governor, John Hickenlooper, who has actually drunk hydraulic fracturing fluid to show that it is safe, believes it is the State's responsibility to regulate industry. And this amendment will do exactly that by ensuring that States like Colorado can continue to safely regulate energy production based on local geology and conditions without unnecessary and unlawful interference from the Federal Government. One size does not fit all and the States frequently--I think always-- know better than the Federal bureaucrats in Washington do what their geology is like, what their water is like, and so son. So I ask that you support my amendment and allow the current energy renaissance to continue ensuring a stable supply of affordable and reliable energy. This will help drive down prices for gasoline, electricity, and home heating. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman has raised an interesting point. On the surface, there is some merit to what she says. However, there is one big flaw. She wasn't aware because she wasn't in the hearing, but when BLM came and spoke to our committee, I said to them: States like Colorado are doing a good job already. Why don't you just regulate the States that don't have their own regulation? Well, they said: No. We want to regulate everybody. They really didn't care whether States had good regulations in place or not. So I think they gave away the game. They just wanted to put more regulation on industry. What that means is that you have two sets of regulations to have to wade through, and that is going to shut out marginal plays, it is going to shut out jobs of people that would have been in those marginal plays. So BLM really wasn't interested in listening to the States. They rejected that suggestion, and they just want to regulate everybody. Let's let the States do what they do best. They know their territory, they know their water, they know their geology. They are doing a great job already. No one ever raised any examples of where the States had not done a good job. So let's pass this amendment and BLM can manage the land and not do what the States are already doing. That is the way it should be. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Colorado Delegation of the U.S. House of Representatives, I am highlighting an issue of importance to Colorado and its community of senior citizens. Earlier this year, Congress passed the Older Americans Act Reauthorization Act of 2016 and sent it to the President for his signature. This reauthorization ensures that a wide range of social and nutritional services, directed to assist senior citizens, is not disrupted. While the reauthorization improves the status quo for the state of Colorado, I still have concerns about the continuing inequity in funding going to our state in comparison to the rest of the country. In an attempt to protect certain states with shrinking senior populations, Congress in 2006 changed the Older Americans Act funding formula to ensure states received a guaranteed funding level. This is known as the ``Hold Harmless Funding Formula.'' Due to Colorado's growing senior population and this provision from 2006, Colorado (among other states) saw massive cuts during sequestration when other states did not. Instead of allowing the funding to go to states with growing senior populations, the hold harmless funding formula in the current reauthorization continues the disproportionate trend. It prevents funding in states with lower senior populations from going to states with growing levels of senior citizens. While I am supportive of the services provided by the Older Americans Act, Congress' priority should be ensuring the stability of the programs upon which millions of seniors around the country depend. In believe that moving forward, it is imperative that steps are taken in future reauthorizations to safeguard services for all seniors regardless of their state of residence. It is my hope that as Congress continues to address issues that are important to all senior citizens, we find a path forward to address the issue I've raised today.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, President Obama's policy of releasing people willy-nilly from Guantanamo is a bad policy. The risk is real. In recent months, the administration has finally admitted that there have been Americans who have died because of Guantanamo detainees who have been released. The Director of National Intelligence has said one of every three released detainees has rejoined the fight. Even if detainees are brought to the U.S. and never escape, to address what my colleague from New York said, there is a very real danger of proselytization within the prison system, radicalizing the inmate population, and allowing terrorists to have increased legal rights, the risk of contraband, and access to communications. If there ever were a trial on U.S. soil, they would have the right to access methods and sources used by our intelligence agencies, and those would be given away to the bad guys. The people of Colorado and other States certainly don't feel safe having these terrorists in their backyards for those reasons. Transferring Guantanamo prisoners to American soil is illegal, period. We need to do everything we can to ensure the President doesn't break the law or overturn the will of the American people and increase the risk to the American people, all because of a foolish and misguided campaign promise. I would like to inform the President that 9/11 happened way before there ever was a Guantanamo prison. That is not why the Islamic radicals attacked us. They oppose our very way of life. They oppose us for who we are, not for what we do. Let's keep GTMO open. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, Congress has consistently made it very clear that it is against the law for the terrorists held at Guantanamo to be brought to the United States. Though this debate is often partisan, this commonsense policy has often had bipartisan support. In fact, Democrats were actually the first to include restrictions in the Defense Appropriations bill in 2009 when they controlled both Chambers of Congress. Since then, a bipartisan majority has renewed these restrictions every year. My amendment is simple and logical and is slightly different than the current law that we do have on the books and the language that is in the NDAA right now. This amendment prohibits the use of any funds to study or prepare U.S. detention facilities to house these terrorists. If it is against the law to bring dangerous terrorists to the United States, why would we allow the Obama administration to study, using taxpayer dollars, how it would try to do this? Why would we want any administration to study how it can break the law? Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), my friend and colleague.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island for his strong support of our national defense and especially for his leadership as ranking member of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee where we serve together. I also thank the gentleman for his engaged and well-informed chairmanship with me of the Directed Energy Caucus. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment because a rail gun is a game-changing, third-offset technology that has many applications across warfare domains and very high potential for a significant leap in capability. It should also save money in the long term as guided hypervelocity projectiles, as has been mentioned, only cost around $30,000 apiece. Without this critical funding, this program will be hard-pressed to make progress and keep moving forward. This next-generation technology will be delayed, and warfighters will lack long-range precision fires against multiple threats. Finally, funding is offset from an account that was originally intended for the exact same purpose. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alabama for yielding. I do thank the gentlemen from both New Jersey and Indiana for their good work. Most of the time I am going to agree with their recommendations, but I reluctantly have to disagree in this case. I rise in strong support of this amendment because we must do everything we can to protect our country from nuclear attack, especially in light of the rapidly growing threat from Iran, North Korea, and elsewhere. Unfortunately, increasingly sophisticated ballistic missile technology is being widely produced and proliferated, and there is a long list of bad actors that currently have or desire this technology. According to the intelligence community, ballistic missile systems are becoming more mobile, survivable, reliable, accurate, and capable of striking targets over longer distances. Today we can trust our current system and those who operate it to keep us safe and our allies safe from ballistic missiles, including warfighters like NORTHCOM/NORAD and the 100th Missile Defense Brigade in my district, and those doing the research and development, capably led by Admiral Syring of the Missile Defense Agency. However, we must not rest on our laurels. We must invest now in future technologies to be prepared to face future threats. Most important, as my colleagues pointed out, there is consensus among senior DOD leaders as well as outside experts that nonkinetic, third-offset technologies such as directed energy are vital both to maintain superiority and to enable us to transition to a more cost- effective approach to missile defense over the long term. The current cost equation is against us. Our interceptor missiles we use to shoot down threats cost much more than hostile missiles we may have to destroy, and buying enough interceptors to counter a proliferating threat is ultimately a huge challenge. Finally, I would simply point out that this amendment restores funding that is so highly classified, we can't debate it publicly, but suffice it to say that it has great promise to help us protect our homeland and keep Americans safe. I appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from Alabama on the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces. It is an honor to serve with him as vice chairman.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas and committee staff for their willingness to work with me on this amendment. I fought long and hard to get this museum the recognition it deserves, and I am very pleased that we have a path forward where we can finally achieve that. My amendment simply recognizes this museum in Colorado Springs as the National Museum of World War II Aviation. This amendment does not authorize any funds. The museum is not seeking Federal funds and does not have plans to do so in the future. The National Museum of World War II Aviation has taken great care to focus its story line on an aspect of military history that has not been fully explored by other national military museums. The intent is to augment the tremendous work that is being done by those museums, not to duplicate or replace it. It is the only museum in the United States that exists to exclusively preserve and promote an understanding of the role of aviation in winning World War II. It is dedicated to celebrating the American spirit and to recognizing the teamwork, patriotism, and courage of the men and women who fought, as well as those on the home front who mobilized and supported the national aviation effort. I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, based on that reassurance and on that pledge to work together, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Alabama for his good work on this rule and on this bill. I want to talk about the critical part of the bill and an amendment that was proposed and then withdrawn, and that has to do with Iran's heavy water production. The reason this amendment was withdrawn and won't be under consideration in the Committee on Rules for discussion later today is because it deserves to have stand-alone treatment. It is that important. Heavy water is used to produce weapons-grade plutonium. Its distinctive properties make it a critical component in the production of nuclear weapons. Now, the nuclear deal that some of the Senators voted for--not by two-thirds by any means--forbids Iran from stockpiling more than 130 tons of heavy water during the initial years of the deal, and they will be allowed to produce 90 tons later. But they are required, under the deal, to redesign and rebuild their Arak facility to support its ``peaceful'' needs and research. So Iran did agree to keep pace with international technological advancement trends and rely only on light water, not heavy water, for future nuclear power, yet they have been producing heavy water nevertheless. The Wall Street Journal has exposed the proposed purchase of Iran's overproduced heavy water, stating that the administration is encouraging ``Tehran to stick to the nuclear agreement reached last year.'' So apparently the administration is seeking to entice others to purchase Iran's overproduced heavy water by making the first purchase. U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said: ``That will be a statement to the world: `You want to buy heavy water from Iran, you can buy heavy water from Iran. It's been done. Even the United States did it.' '' So we are enabling Iran to violate the terms of the deal, and we are going out and buying this, using taxpayer dollars nevertheless. Now, if the Iranians cannot or simply will not keep the deal, we have to come up with a better deal, not bail them out of aspects of the deal that they don't want to comply with. So this proposed purchase by the administration violates the intention of the deal and the will of the American people. We can't let this administration or the speech writer Ben Rhodes or their fabricated echo chamber deceive us any longer. By the way, this speech writer, Ben Rhodes, admitted in a New York Times article published just the other day that they took things they knew not to be true and misled the American people on purpose to get the deal passed. We must not authorize funds to purchase heavy water from Iran. Because this issue is so important, I will work with leadership to make sure that we consider this later as stand-alone legislation.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, national sovereignty is one of the most basic and fundamental principles of international law. Countries differ in their history, culture, aims, locations, and challenges. These factors work to shape the laws that govern that nation. Without understanding and respecting these fundamental principles of sovereignty, nation-states would have their territorial integrity infringed upon, be subordinated to outside imposed actions, or come under threat from other hostile forces. That is why I cofounded the House Sovereignty Caucus here in Congress. We must never forget that the supreme law of the land is the U.S. Constitution, Federal laws made pursuant to the Constitution and treaties made under the Constitution's authority. Upholding this supreme law is what makes America great. Threats to U.S. sovereignty are being attempted every day. We must stay on guard against them, both from without and from within. We must uphold the supreme law of the land. If we divert from this law, we will lose our sovereignty and our freedom.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Montenegro on the tenth anniversary of their independence, which will occur on Saturday, May 21. Ten years ago this week, voters in Montenegro went to the polls in a referendum which posed the question, ``Do you want Montenegro to be an independent state?'' When the dust settled in the evening of May 21, 2006, 55.5 percent of voters chose to peacefully dissolve the union with Serbia. Shortly thereafter, all five members of the United Nations Security Council recognized the newest country in the world. In a region marked by bullets and bombs, this was the beginning of a praiseworthy chapter in regional and trans-Atlantic history. In addition, I am very pleased that this proud nation is on a path to become the newest member of NATO. Its inclusion in NATO will strengthen regional and trans-Atlantic security, and sends a strong message of strength to friend and foe alike. Given that countries much larger than Montenegro often dominate our foreign policy, it is easy to overlook the importance of ten years of U.S.-Montenegro relations. U.S. government assistance to Montenegro has aimed to help the country advance toward Euro-Atlantic integration, increase its ability to fight organized crime and corruption, strengthen its civil society and democratic structures, and provide stability in the fragile Balkans. Meanwhile, American business leaders likewise play a vital role. For example, the Stratex Group is the largest American investor in Montenegro. The CEO was one of the first Jewish families to flee the scourge of Soviet Communism settling in our great country. Today, his company is working alongside our Embassy and recently just hosted airmen from the Air War College. Only two places in Montenegro fly the American flag: the U.S. Embassy and the Stratex properties. Beyond strengthening our formal diplomatic alliance, my colleagues here in Congress must endeavor to creatively promote business and cultural diplomacy--in Montenegro and around the world. We must encourage our diplomats to have a greater appreciation for American investments in emerging democracies. I believe that with a full commitment to rule of law, transparency and an independent judiciary, Montenegro will achieve its stated goal of further attracting American investors and, in the process, strengthen the trans-Atlantic community. With the focus of Congress, I am confident Montenegrin government leaders will fully commit to prioritizing these critical reforms and educating a new generation about conducting corruption-free business in the 21st century. As Chairman of the Montenegro Caucus, I will continue to support Montenegro, and I will continue to support a stable, secure Europe based on collective self-defense, free trade and economic freedom, the rule of law, and democracy.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, the first and fundamental purpose of government is to provide for the common defense. Of the 17 powers granted to the Congress under Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution, 6 of them deal exclusively with the national defense. Providing for our national defense is the only mandatory function of our government. It follows, then, that we must take this responsibility very seriously. And I do. As a senior Member of the House Armed Services Committee, I am working to ensure that we reverse the troop cuts made by this Administration, and to provide the necessary materials and equipment we need to respond to the threats we face. Whether this Administration admits it or not, there are many that seek the ``death of America.'' We must recognize that we are at war with terrorists--they are constantly devising means and methods to injure our citizens, whether they are home or abroad. As Iran, China, and Russia continue to provoke--and even detain--our armed forces. We must show that we will not be disrespected, mistreated, or intimidated. The best offense is a good defense and I will continue to ensure that we have both.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Father Lawrence W. ``Bill'' Carmody, beloved priest of the Colorado Springs Diocese and tireless warrior for the unborn. He passed away on February 23, at the age of 58 after a long battle with cancer. A Colorado native ordained in 1990, Father Carmody faithfully served the Colorado Springs area for more than 25 years. In 1995 he was named the pastor of Corpus Christi Parish. Later, Father Carmody led the movement to found St. Dominic Catholic Church in Security, where he also served as pastor. St. Dominic's is the largest Catholic church in the Colorado Springs area. Father Carmody was also a devoted leader of the pro-life movement. He led the Diocese's Respect Life Office, dedicated to the promotion of a greater understanding of the Church's teachings to respect life in all its phases. For over a decade, Father Carmody lovingly celebrated mass every week outside a local abortion clinic. In 1994, he introduced the Project Rachel program in Colorado Springs. The Project Rachel program is dedicated to helping those suffering after an abortion. Father Carmody called his work with the Project Rachel program as the ``most profound experience I have as a priest--watching people heal from what they believe is an unforgiveable sin and find God's forgiveness.'' Father Carmody was truly a great man who spent his time on earth defending life and lovingly ministering to those our Heavenly Father entrusted to his care. He touched the lives of many while living out his calling to serve the Colorado Springs community. I pray that his legacy continue to be an inspiration to all of us in the years to come.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following: Whereas, since 1966, the United States Air Force at Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station has been the synergistic hub to track foreign threats worldwide, providing an essential component of North American defense and global security; and Whereas, countless space and ground sensor data collections are assimilated, providing leadership the key threat assessments to ensure safety and security to millions of people around the world; and Whereas, the 21st Space Wing at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, Colorado provides operational support and infrastructure sustainability, and today celebrates the 50th anniversary of the full operational capability of Cheyenne Mountain; and Whereas, the 721st Mission Support Group at Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado Springs, Colorado provides the dedicated daily sustainment to more than 13 mission partners performing the national security mission inside of the Mountain Complex; and Whereas, every day over 1,000 U.S. and Canadian military and civilians, residing in Colorado and working in Cheyenne Mountain, are ever vigilant, round the clock, in our collective common defense; and Whereas, Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station is one of the greatest engineering marvels of its time, still relevant now and into the future, representing an Eighteen Billion Dollar ($18B) facility, unrivaled anywhere in the world; and Whereas, Colorado is proud to be a nexus in providing for the defense of North America, which has a far-reaching utility and whose multi-use services are critical to national and global security not only today but in the future; therefore, on the occasion of its 50th Anniversary, I do hereby proclaim, forever after, April 20, 2016, as Cheyenne Mountain Day.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the leadership of Representative DeSantis and Representative Jordan in holding the Obama administration accountable. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to call for the impeachment of John Koskinen, Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, for high crimes and misdemeanors. This effort is needed to hold the IRS Commissioner accountable for allowing documents to be destroyed and for providing misleading statements to Congress after IRS targeted conservative organizations. I am a cosponsor--and proud to be one--of the resolution. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. As it has become abundantly clear, Commissioner Koskinen has failed the American people by stonewalling congressional investigations into the IRS targeting scandal. Conservative organizations were intentionally targeted by our Federal Government simply because they believed and expressed a message that was in opposition to the administration. Now, while I may disagree with many on the left, I would never seek to threaten them by use of government force and coercion and take away their freedom of speech. Moreover, what is truly disturbing about the IRS scandal is that Commissioner Koskinen has violated the public trust. As a Commissioner, he failed to comply with a congressional subpoena, failed to ensure that evidence was preserved, failed to testify truthfully, and failed to notify Congress when he learned that thousands of emails were missing. Our constituents expect Congress to exercise oversight of this administration and to demand accountability. We know the IRS Commissioner cannot be trusted. Impeachment would help rectify this sorry situation and would go a long way toward showing the American people that we are serious about our constitutional duties. Impeachment is the appropriate means to restore balance between the branches of government. The Framers included impeachment in the Constitution for precisely this scenario, where an executive branch official who violated the public trust will not resign and they refuse to fire him. That is exactly what should happen here. IRS Commissioner Koskinen must go.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1644, the Supporting Transparent Regulatory and Environmental Actions in Mining Act, or the STREAM Act for short. The STREAM Act has three goals. First, it establishes a requirement for scientific transparency and integrity in any rulemaking conducted by the Office of Surface Mining--we will be calling that OSM during our debate--under the authority of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. Some people call it SMCRA. In the past, the Office of Surface Mining, or OSM, has sought to promulgate rules based on internal studies that are not made public. The first section of H.R. 1644, the STREAM Act, ensures transparency by requiring OSM to publish all scientific products it relies on in the rulemaking process. For federally funded scientific products, the STREAM Act requires OSM to also publish raw data. If a scientific product is withheld from the public for more than 6 months, then the rule, environmental analysis, or economic assessment it supports will be withdrawn. The second goal is to require an independent third-party assessment of the existing 1983 rule--which we are operating under right now--to determine if any deficiencies exist. The purpose of the independent study is to mitigate the polarization of this issue. As such, the STREAM Act requires the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Interstate Mining Compact Commission, to contract with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of the 1983 stream buffer zone rule. Mr. Chairman, this study will examine the effectiveness of the existing 1983 rule by the National Academy of Sciences and make recommendations for improving the rule, if necessary. The Secretary is prohibited from issuing any regulations addressing stream buffer zones or stream protection until 1 year after the completion of the study and is required to take into consideration the findings or recommendations of the study. This element of the STREAM Act is important because it ensures that the 24 States with primacy over surface mining will have input on the study. Unfortunately, beginning in 2011, OSM completely shut the States out of the rulemaking process, even though OSM had signed memoranda of understanding with 10 cooperating agency States in 2010 and one other State signing on as a commentator. According to OSM, ``States permit and regulate 97 percent of the Nation's coal production. States and tribes also abate well over 90 percent of the abandoned mine lands problems.'' That is in the words of OSM. The expertise for understanding the stream protection rule and other regulations promulgated under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act lies with the States, not with OSM. Yet, the States were completely cut out of the rulemaking process. The third goal, finally, of H.R. 1644 is to inhibit OSM's regulatory overreach by curtailing regulatory action that would duplicate, enforce, or determine compliance with laws that are outside of OSM's jurisdiction. An express concern related to the ongoing stream buffer zone rule rewrite is that OSM has sought to interpret and enforce the Clean Water Act, which is outside of its authority, by establishing a new set of water quality monitoring, evaluation standards, and procedures. In fact, the draft rule amends 475 existing rules promulgated under SMCRA, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. OSM used the rulemaking process to rewrite the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 and went well outside of Congress' intent in writing that law. Also--and this is amazingly shortsighted for our economic and energy future as a country--the draft rule released in July 2015 would freeze or sterilize more than 60 percent of the Nation's coal reserves. If the draft rule, as written, is finalized, the administration will expose the U.S. taxpayer to takings litigation. This has happened before. An example would be the Whitney Benefits case in Wyoming that involved a regulatory taking of coal reserves that underlie alluvial material. Passage of the STREAM Act will halt this destructive rulemaking process and provide an avenue for a collaborative approach to address deficiencies in the existing rule, if any, with the primacy States. It will save and protect the American taxpayer. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mooney) who has done an excellent job on the committee representing the folks of West Virginia. Mr. MOONEY from West Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Lamborn and Chairman Bishop for their leadership in getting this bill to the floor, and my friend, Bill Johnson, for his continued support on this issue. It is imperative that we pass our bill, H.R. 1644, the Supporting Transparent Regulatory and Environmental Actions in Mining Act, also known as the STREAM Act. My bill delays the implementation of the Obama administration's stream protection rule. When the rewrite of the rule was first proposed, the Office of Surface Mining described it as a ``minor'' regulation that would only impact one coal region. They could not be more wrong. This rule contains sweeping changes that modify 475 existing rules and is over 2,500 pages in length. Taken together, these changes will destroy up to 77,000 coal mining jobs nationwide, including up to 52,000 in the Appalachian region. This would be devastating to States, like my home State of West Virginia, that have already been hit hard by President Obama's continuous war on coal. Between 5,000 and 10,000 jobs in western mining States will be lost, between 5,000 and 14,000 jobs will be lost in the interior States, and between 30,000 and 50,000 jobs in the Appalachian region will be lost due to this new stream protection rule. These new regulations would be catastrophic to the hardworking American families that depend on coal to keep their energy costs low. In my State, 90 percent of power is generated by coal-fired plants. One recent study showed that if the Obama administration successfully implements its radical environmental policies, the average American family will experience a $1,707-a-year increase in their home energy costs by the year 2025. The average American family earned $53,657 last year. The average family in West Virginia earned $41,059, which is $12,598 under the national average. This home energy cost increase will be detrimental for all Americans, but especially for West Virginians. When I campaigned to represent the people of the Second Congressional District of West Virginia, I promised that I would do all I could to fight for the coal industry and the hardworking men and women of our State. You have to understand that these jobs in West Virginia are good-paying jobs. These are jobs that families rely on to put food on the table and provide for the health and safety of their families. This STREAM Act is completely unnecessary. Going after these jobs is callous and wrong. West Virginia and our country need the STREAM Act to pass the House and the Senate and be signed into law. I urge my colleagues in the House to vote for this important bill today.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In response to my good friend and colleague Representative Lowenthal, I would like to say that just in today's Wall Street Journal, Arch Coal revealed that it has declared bankruptcy. They are one of the top coal producers in this country. I would say that the loss of jobs and this administration's war on coal is actually a staggering and frightening phenomenon, and that is why we need the STREAM Act. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins).

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. LAMBORN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am going to recognize a Member in just a second. But in response to Mr. Yarmuth, I would just like to point out that the Office of Surface Mining has left States out of the discussions. States like Kentucky are not allowed to collaborate in this process, and that is unfortunate, because I think Kentucky and other States have something to contribute to this dialogue and this issue. So that is what the STREAM Act that we are going to vote on in a little bit would accomplish. It brings the States back into the equation. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson). He has been a stalwart defender of the coal industry and the future that coal has in the energy and economy of our country.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).