Doug Lamborn

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Member for not opposing this amendment, and I ask that we vote ``yes'' on it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In my closing remarks, I would like to highlight the findings of an economic impact analysis of the draft stream buffer zone rule, released in 2015, issued against the Obama administration regulation. The study was done by the ENVIRON International Corporation. ENVIRON found that 64 percent of the Nation's coal reserves would be sterilized, or frozen, resulting in an annual loss in value that ranges between $14 billion to $29 billion. The proposed rule hits longwall mining particularly hard, causing a decrease of 47 to 85 percent in recoverable longwall coal reserves. Longwall mining is considered the safest, most efficient, and most profitable type of underground mining. Sterilizing so much of the Nation's coal reserves will have a significant impact on employment, ranging from a loss of 40,000 to about 77,000 direct jobs and 112,000 to 280,000 indirect jobs from those businesses and industries that provide goods and services to the mining sector. These jobs are high-paying, family-wage jobs, with excellent benefits, including health care. The economic impact to the coal- producing States and counties will be staggering. The STREAM Act instills sanity into the Office of Surface Mining's rulemaking process by requiring transparency in the scientific products used by OSM in any rulemaking that they have. It narrowly focuses the stream buffer zone rule to actual stream buffer zones and not 474 other regulations. It also allows States with the expertise in regulating the Nation's coal mines to participate in the assessment of the effectiveness of the existing rule. Finally, it reins in OSM's overreach into areas outside of its statutory jurisdiction. Mr. Chairman, there are two great ironies in this whole war on coal by the administration. Actually, it is a war on the American people. It is a war on working families because it not only costs high-paying jobs, but it drives up the cost of energy. When you drive up the cost of energy, that takes money out of people's pockets, and they have less money left over to take care of their families and to provide for their futures. If the war on coal by this administration were successful, not only would you have those negative impacts, but many of the environmentalists would just create another war. There is already one major group that says, ``Oh, we don't even like natural gas,'' which is being touted as the replacement for coal. They don't even like that. There will be some other reason to which they will find objection with regard to whatever takes coal's place, would that day ever come. When you run the numbers, the environmental impact of getting rid of coal completely for electrical generation would have a negligible impact on any future impact on the global climate. Let's pass the STREAM Act as it protects jobs, it protects rural communities, and it protects the American taxpayer. I ask that my colleagues support this important piece of legislation and vote for its final passage. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I believe that this amendment is really technical in nature. It does two things. First, we ensure that the legislation does not infringe on copyright laws. According to the largest private publishers of scientific research, government-funded studies will be made publicly available ``where the government has funded the publication of a private sector, peer- reviewed article or where the author of the article is a government employee . . . we do not dispute that any such article couldn't be made publicly available.'' We are addressing that concern that was raised during the markup of this bill. Second, we identified a technical error in a U.S. Code citation and corrected it. I ask for a ``yes'' vote on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close as soon as the opposing side has closed. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. I yield the gentlewoman from Wyoming an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

Mr. LAMBORN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute. So without the invasive species in the restored land, you could almost say, couldn't you, that the land is better than it was before?

Mr. LAMBORN. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. LAMBORN. 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. 1644.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, in response to a statement that was just made, let me point out that Johns Hopkins researchers--maybe one of the leading medical institutions in our country--found that ``no increased risk of birth defects was observed from births from mountaintop mining counties after adjustment for or stratification by hospital of birth.'' So there are other issues going on that do affect the health in these areas. But you can't blame it on mountaintop mining, at least not according to Johns Hopkins. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis), who is a valuable member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. LAMBORN. Will the gentlewoman yield?

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. 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. I have seen some of the operations in the great State of Wyoming. Isn't it true that the reclaimed and restored land does not have the invasive species that we have unfortunately seen in this country in recent decades?

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, it is with a sad heart that I rise today to speak for those whose lives have been tragically cut short in the wake of Roe v. Wade. A staggering 57 million innocent girls and boys have been aborted in this country since that horrible decision 43 years ago. Roe v. Wade remains one of the most heinous acts of judicial activism in the history of the United States. As a father of five and a grandfather of three, I know that every child is a wonderful gift from God. Our country was founded upon the sacred truth that all deserve the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The perverse belief that an unplanned child does not possess the same value as that of any other child should have no place in our society. There may be unplanned children, but there is no such thing as an unwanted child. Later this month, thousands of pro-life patriots will come to Washington to peacefully march in support of life and against the national disgrace that is abortion. I am pleased to be among those fighting against this greatest human rights injustice of our time. We must continue to pray, and we must continue to speak up for the innocents who cannot speak for themselves.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the National Coordination Office for Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing which recently celebrated its 10 year anniversary in November 2015. The National Coordination Office, also known as the NCO, was established by a presidential directive under President George W. Bush. That directive provided guidance to government agencies on the management of the Global Positioning System (GPS) and other space-based Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PNT) systems. It also established the National Executive Committee (EXCOM) for Space-Based PNT, which is chaired jointly by the Deputy Secretaries of Defense and Transportation and includes their equivalents from the Departments of State, the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, and Homeland Security, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The NCO is a cadre of senior advisors from the EXCOM member agencies and has become a linchpin for national GPS policy information. Earlier this year I worked with the NCO at a Space Power Caucus event on GPS. As chairman of the caucus, I presided over this event and was impressed by the educational information on how GPS works, how it affects our daily lives and critical infrastructure, and ongoing government efforts to maintain GPS as the ``gold standard'' for PNT around the world. The transparent operations of the NCO keep track of these vital efforts and inform the EXCOM agencies, Congress, and the public on Space-based PNT. The NCO facilitates the implementation of EXCOM tasks and disseminates information about U.S. space-based PNT programs and policy through the official government GPS website at www.gps.gov. The Department of Commerce and its Office of Space Commerce have hosted the NCO since 2005. This longstanding relationship was recently codified in law through the U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, signed November 25, 2015. In ten years, the NCO evolved from an idea into an essential organization with significant impact within the space-based PNT community. NCO efforts ensure the EXCOM is an effective body for assisting national leaders in implementing national Space-based PNT policy. In closing Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge this organization on this milestone, and congratulate them on ten years of hard work and wish them continued success in the future.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, just to finish this, I would say that this is an unnecessary amendment because there are already two, if not three, different times that the notice to the surface owner already takes place: once to the public at large, twice to the surface owner in particular. Secondly, this is poorly written. I am afraid that it does not just refer strictly to Federal lands that the BLM controls, but this could apply to tribal lands and private lands. So it makes a mess in that regard. And, thirdly, it goes 1 mile away. The current law does refer to the surface owner and accomplishes the things that the proponent of the amendment wants to accomplish, so it is unnecessary. For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I want to let my colleague from Colorado know that this is an unnecessary amendment, so I would ask Members to oppose it. There already is a lot of built-in notification that does take place. I don't know if my colleague is aware of this or not, but when an expression of interest for leasing is made, the BLM requires that all of the surface owners, wherever this expression of interest for leasing applies to, are notified by mail. Secondly, before a permit is issued, there is another notification to the surface owners of wherever that lease is located. Thirdly, under the NEPA process, before the leases are even issued, the public is notified. I know this amendment talks about notifying everyone within 1 mile. The public notification is a lot broader than just 1 mile, so, actually, current law does more than what this amendment calls for. But there are two different steps, in addition to the public notice, where the surface landowner actually is notified by mail by a good faith effort required by the Bureau of Land Management for Federal lands. On top of all that, Mr. Chairman, I ask opposition for this amendment because it is poorly written. It is ambiguous as to whether it is only applying to Federal lands or is broader and would include tribal lands, private lands, and things way out of the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management. But, in any case, even if it would just apply to the Federal lands, it is unnecessary. Because of the different steps that are required under the language of this amendment, it would add a lot of paperwork and red tape and really not accomplish anything more than what is already clearly accomplished two or three times under existing law. For all those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I ask that we oppose this amendment. I know it is well-intentioned, but the law already takes care of this. This amendment, besides being poorly written, would add a lot of time and paperwork and red tape to the process right now. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.