Dan Newhouse

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. This bill is a good idea, and I think the debate that we have had here today underscores the importance of this as we consider this under the rule. H.R. 1431 addresses problems that have arisen over the years with the Science Advisory Board, and actually would return the Board to its intended purpose--something maybe the gentleman does not agree with--to provide independent expert advice on scientific and technical information. By modernizing the policies and the procedures of the governing of the SAB, Congress, with this bill, can take critical steps to make sure that the SAB is best equipped to provide that independent, transparent, balanced review and the analyses of the science used that guides the EPA's regulatory decisions. One key issue that this measure would address is the importance of having regulations that are supported by science and that are reproducible and accessible for peer review, not antiscience, like some people have said. Quite the opposite. We want science. We want good science. The scientific method demands that the result of scientific studies be capable of replication. This is all the more critical when the information is used to develop and set public policy, which is why the methods and the data used by the EPA and the SAB must be publicly available for purposes of replication and verification. If you don't want public transparency, I guess you should vote ``no'' on this bill. Mr. Speaker, opponents of the legislation have argued that it makes unnecessary and unproductive changes to the SAB, that it would restrict the ability of scientists to engage on the issues they specialize in, creates new burdens through the public comment and transparency provisions, and weakens the ability of the EPA to use the best available science and data to support its rules and regulations. I believe that these arguments fail to recognize what this bill actually does accomplish. They seem to ignore the importance of reforming the Federal rulemaking process in a way that ensures sound science is the bedrock on which Federal rules and regulations are built--sound science; is that a radical idea--and that these are not predetermined political agendas. Unfortunately, the EPA has diluted the Board's credibility by systematically silencing dissenting opinions, ignoring calls for balanced participation, and preventing the Board from responding to congressional reports. Fully 10 percent of the seats on the Board will be filled by State, local, and tribal representatives, improving the balance of that participation. H.R. 1431 simply encourages greater transparency, debate, and public participation in the Board, which will result in better decisionmaking at the EPA. I think that is something everyone should be able to agree on. I don't think public participation is a burden, but, rather, a benefit that improves the relationship and the interaction between Federal regulators and the public. By strengthening public participation, improving the process for selecting expert advisers, and expanding transparency requirements, this legislation takes critical steps that will improve our regulatory system, while also ensuring that the most qualified and the most capable scientists are free to undertake a balanced and open review of regulatory science. Mr. Speaker, it is time to update the law. It is time to restore independence to the Science Advisory Board. It is time to strengthen scientific integrity. Science is an invaluable tool that helps policymakers navigate complex issues, yet this resource has been severely diminished if the EPA interferes with expert advice, limits public participation, and fails to disclose potential conflicts of interest. As President Reagan said in guidance to the EPA: ``The purpose of the Science Advisory Board is to apply the universally accepted principles of scientific peer review to the research conclusions that will form the basis for EPA regulations, a function that must remain above interest group politics.'' Mr. Speaker, I believe H.R. 1431 gets to the heart of President Reagan's point. Greater debate, unbiased scientific advice and independent peer-reviews, and public participation will only result in better decisionmaking at the Federal level. I believe that this is the goal we all share, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule, as well as the underlying bill.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. I think we have run to the end of our speakers.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, the American Farm Bureau Federation states: ``This legislation seeks to reinforce the SAB process as a tool that can help policymakers with complex issues while preventing EPA from muzzling impartial scientific advice. This legislation deserves strong, bipartisan support. We applaud your leadership in this effort and will work with you to ensure passage.'' These are two bipartisan groups looking out for the best interests of the citizens of our great country, so I think they make strong statements in support of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read an excerpt from the American Chemistry Council letter: ``The Science Advisory Board Reform Act would improve the peer review process--a critical component of the scientific process used by EPA in their regulatory decisions about potential risks to human health or the environment. The Act would make peer reviewers accountable for responding to public comment, strengthen policies to address conflicts of interest, ensure engagement of a wide range of perspectives of qualified scientific experts in EPA's scientific peer review panels and increase transparency in peer review reports.'' That is a strong statement. I also include in the Record a letter from the American Farm Bureau Federation. American Farm Bureau Federation, Washington, DC, March 8, 2017. Hon. Lamar Smith, Chair, House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Washington, DC. Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Johnson: Later this week, the House Science, Space and Technology Committee will consider legislation to provide for Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) member qualifications and public participation. The American Farm Bureau strongly supports this legislation and pledges our commitment to work with the committee in pressing for its swift consideration. This legislation is a priority because it reforms the SAB process by strengthening public participation, improving the process of selecting expert advisors, and expanding the overall transparency of the SAB. While the SAB should be a critical part of the scientific foundation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulatory process, EPA has systematically used its authority to silence dissenting scientific experts. Rather than promote fairness, transparency and independence to ensure unbiased scientific advice, EPA routinely has ignored its own Peer Review Handbook and silenced dissenting voices on expert panels. This legislation seeks to reinforce the SAB process as a tool that can help policymakers with complex issues while preventing EPA from muzzling impartial scientific advice. This legislation deserves strong, bipartisan support. We applaud your leadership in this effort and will work with you to ensure passage. Sincerely, Zippy Duvall, President.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. In fact, some of those comments he was making I thought he was quoting me, or at least quoting parts of my own speech. Certainly, I agree that the decisions made by the Environmental Protection Agency should be based on fact, not by industry insiders, and that is exactly what this legislation would do. I can't think of any instance where asking for more full public participation as well as transparency is not a positive step, and that is exactly what we are trying to do here. In reference to the number of closed rules that we have had this year, let me just remind the good gentleman that 15 out of the 23 closed rules were actually the Congressional Review Act, the CRAs that we have been working on. They are prescribed to be a closed rule. That is the nature of a CRA. So I would think that, in the good gentleman's estimation of this bill and all the negative things that could potentially come of it, that we should be able to come to some bipartisan agreement on this, especially considering the political climate that we are in today, the occupant of the White House today, certainly in Republican hands, and I would think our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle would be very interested in ensuring an unbiased source of information that comes from the SAB to give to the EPA in making their important decisions. This, I would think, would be a good idea for both sides of the aisle, no matter who is in the White House, and I would agree that it is. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber), my good friend.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the House Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 233, providing for consideration of H.R. 1431, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017. This legislation will reform the Environmental Protection Agency, or the EPA, Science Advisory Board to ensure that it is unbiased and transparent in performing its duties. The SAB, the Science Advisory Board, was first established by Congress in 1978 and plays a vital role in reviewing the scientific foundation of EPA's regulatory decisions, while also providing critical advice to us here in Congress as well as the Agency. The information it reviews is used to justify important policy decisions at the EPA and should be held to the highest standards because it is imperative that the regulated community and the public can have confidence that EPA decisions are grounded, that science should be both reproducible and transparent. However, shortcomings with the current process have arisen in recent years, including limited public participation, EPA interference with expert advice, potential conflicts of interest, and serious deficiencies with the process to select the board members. Far too often, the SAB's authority has been used by the EPA to silence dissenting scientific views and opinions, rather than promoting the impartiality and fairness that is the cornerstone of unbiased scientific advice. At its inception, the SAB was intended to function independently in order to provide candid advice and guidance to the EPA. Yet, if the Agency undermines this autonomy, then the SAB's value to both the EPA and Congress, I believe, is severely diminished. Mr. Speaker, to address these issues, H.R. 1431 would reform the SAB and reaffirm its independence so the public and regulated entities can have that confidence that sound science is driving policy decisions at the EPA. The bill makes several important reforms to the SAB, such as requiring board members to be qualified experts; disclosing conflicts of interest and sources of bias; and ensuring that the views of members, including the dissenting members, are available to the public. It provides the public with the opportunity to participate in the advisory activities of the board and gives people the ability to view the agency's responses to issues raised by the SAB. Additionally, the bill requires that at least 10 percent of the board is comprised of State, local, and tribal experts; that board members do not participate in advisory activities that involve reviews or evaluations of their own work; and that EPA publicly disclose all board member recusals; and that comments are published in the Federal Register. So these reforms will improve the existing regulatory process, while also reinvigorating the scientific judgements that are often directly linked to regulatory decisions. The EPA relies on SAB reviews and studies to support new regulations, new standards, assessments, and other Agency actions. A transparent and accountable Science Advisory Board is critically important and can assure the public that the data that Federal agencies rely on is scientifically sound and unbiased. This legislation would reinforce that the SAB process is a tool to help policymakers with complex issues, while also preventing the EPA from taking actions that impede the free flow of impartial scientific advice. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of an important measure that will improve the peer review process and ensure sound science is used in the Federal rulemaking process. It is a simple, relatively straightforward bill that will make the SAB more consistent, transparent, and accountable to our bosses, the American people. Transparency in regulations based on the highest quality science should not be a partisan issue. In the 114th Congress, a nearly identical version of this bill was passed by the House, I am glad to say, with bipartisan support. I hope we can join together again to pass this important bill with support from Members of both sides of the aisle, from both parties. I urge my colleagues to support this rule as well as the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 233 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, under the ACA, 5 to 6 million Americans were kicked off their healthcare plans, including 300,000 of my fellow Washingtonians who lost coverage despite repeated promises they could keep their plans. A majority of Americans have faced skyrocketing costs, reduced access to quality care, and fewer choices for their families. I believe we can and we must do better. Under this bill, Americans will have health care that fits individual and family needs instead of federally mandated, one-size-fits-all coverage that is simply unaffordable for far too many people. This bill strengthens and guarantees access for the most vulnerable in our communities. The ACA has failed. I made a promise to the thousands of my constituents who have told me of the devastation this law has wreaked on their lives that I would not forget them. Americans in every election since 2010 have said loud and clear the same thing, and it is time that we listened. Mr. Speaker, the American Health Care Act is the first major step in keeping that promise, and I think that we need to take it.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his leadership on this issue this evening and throughout this year. I also want to thank him for the opportunity to address the House of Representatives on this very important issue that we are dealing with right now. Mr. Speaker, throughout my time representing the good people of central Washington State in the U.S. Congress, constituents from across my district, the Fourth District, have shared with me their deeply personal stories. These are personal stories about the struggles and the hardships that they have experienced and that they have faced since the passage of the Affordable Care Act. So let me just relate to you a couple of those because I think they are very important and help illustrate exactly what it is that we are trying to correct. In late 2016, a gentleman from the city of Yakima wrote to me in distress, as his insurance provider was pulling out of Yakima County. He told me: My wife and I are losing our healthcare coverage. Our financial lives are about to be radically changed and a literal risk to our health is upon us. The challenge to find affordable, acceptable healthcare insurance will be immense. That is not unlike another story that I heard in early 2015. A young woman from Grandview wrote to describe her dire situation being forced on to the Affordable Care Act exchange. She told me: I was paying $231 a month for a policy that had a $500 deductible with a $10 copay. However, under the ACA, she said her healthcare costs have skyrocketed. She continues: I now pay $475 a month for a policy that has a $5,500 deductible. This is not affordable health care. It is the middle class American who has worked hard to have a good retirement who is being hit hard by this. Another gentleman from West Richland recently pleaded that the many middle class workers like him must not be forgotten as we repeal and replace this broken law. He says: Do not forget us when fixing. We liked our plan, and we lost it. Just last week, a farmer from Moses Lake called my office and said that, before the ACA, he was paying less than $200 a month for a catastrophic plan that provided coverage for his family. Now he is forced to pay $1,000 a month with high deductibles that discourage his family from even being able to use and access the healthcare insurance that they are paying for. These are just some of the many stories of the dozens, the hundreds that I have been hearing from over the last couple of years since I started representing the good people of central Washington. Like I said, these are true stories, personal stories of the struggles that people are facing on a daily basis and have pleaded with us to take strong action to deliver them from this situation that they find themselves in. I think it is similar across the country. As you hear tonight from other Members speaking about their districts, you are hearing similar stories. So that is something that, I think, as we debate the best way to repeal and to replace the Affordable Care Act, I am committed to ensuring that we protect the most vulnerable. I am also committed to providing relief for the majority of everyday, middle class Americans who have been devastated by this misguided and broken law. Let me just say: I hear you, I will not forget about you, and I will keep your stories at the forefront of my mind as we work to fix this failed system.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time. I am certainly in favor of the Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017, which I think will provide necessary transparency in the regulatory process by requiring agencies to post all public comments issued during a proposed rulemaking, which sounds simple enough. I cosponsored this legislation because I strongly believe, and I firmly believe, the public comment process is critical to ensure Federal regulations are drafted to protect the American people and not to punish them. Unfortunately, far too often, agencies either ignore or fail to incorporate the public's input and suggestions when proposing and finalizing these important rules. Many regulatory actions impose billions of dollars in compliance and other costs on industries, on consumers, on small businesses, on farmers, and on families while bureaucrats ignore the meaningful input, suggested improvements, and the real concerns being voiced by the very people that will be most affected by their actions. Mr. Speaker, this measure requires more transparency and accountability of Federal agency communications about proposed and pending regulations. Agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency have continually violated Federal laws and appropriations restrictions that prohibit the use of Federal funds for lobbying, advocacy, and propaganda efforts. I know many are aware of the EPA's unlawful social media campaign advocating for the waters of the United States rule, the WOTUS rule; however, an even more egregious example recently occurred in my own home State of Washington. The EPA-funded What's Upstream campaign used grant awards to fund a website, radio ads, and billboards depicting dead fish and polluted water, alleging that farmers and the agriculture industry were responsible. The website helped visitors email their State legislators to advocate for 100-foot stream buffer zones around farms and other agricultural operations, despite prohibitions against such advocacy. As a lifelong farmer, I have got to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I was insulted by the blatant lies this campaign had spread about farmers; and as a Member of Congress, I am outraged that the EPA continues to award grant funding to the entities responsible for this, I think, despicable and deceitful antifarmer campaign. I believe Congress must ensure Federal agencies follow the law to prevent future libelous campaigns like What's Upstream from ever receiving another cent of taxpayer dollars. H.R. 1004 prohibits lobbying in support of proposed rules and requires agencies to track the details of all public communications about pending regulatory actions, while establishing clear standards for prohibited activities. This will guarantee that both the public and Congress understand how Federal agencies communicate with the public about pending regulations, and these reasonable restrictions will support transparency and accountability across the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, agencies should consider comments from the public and incorporate reasonable changes so that proposed Federal regulations can be revised and refined using that valuable public feedback before they are finalized. However, too often, Federal bureaucrats simply go through the motions and end up ignoring the public's input while they happily flout Federal law and create campaigns designed to garner support for their preferred proposals. Federal agencies must not treat their proposed regulations as final. By doing so, they are ignoring the voice and the will of the American people. I urge my colleagues to support this important rule and the underlying bill; then, together, we can return transparency, we can return accountability, and we can return public input to the Federal rulemaking process once and for all.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to rightly include state and local entities in federal decision-making and determinations that could potentially have profound impacts on states, municipalities, and local stakeholders. Federal agencies like the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) are currently not required to share the underlying data used in listing decisions made under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) with the states or local entities that would be impacted by such listing decisions. The State, Tribal, and Local Species Transparency and Recovery Act will amend the ESA to simply require that federal agencies disclose all data used to promulgate a potential or final listing determination to the states affected by federal regulatory actions. Local entities deserve to have input on matters with potentially significant impacts on their communities. This bill is a simple, straightforward step to ensuring that input is offered and given due consideration. The legislation gives local stakeholders the opportunity to verify, dispute, or complement the information federal agencies use in an ESA listings. Far too often, states' data and species recovery plans are effectively ignored by federal agencies, even after earnest and costly efforts have been made to develop comprehensive and effective plans at the state and local levels. Regardless of these efforts, there is currently no guarantee that federal agencies will consider these plans nor the often superior data developed by local entities. By providing states, tribes, and localities the data used to promulgate these proposed listings, an opportunity arises for local stakeholders to get involved, and have their voices heard. Federal agencies too often overlook local conservation plans developed to ensure the protection of native species. These local efforts should not be disregarded. Local stakeholders deserve to have input in these federal decisions, and also deserve to know whether their hard work is taken into consideration long before the end result of a federal listing decision is made public. By involving local entities and the firsthand information developed on the ground by the groups, stakeholders, and communities who know these matters best, federal decisions will be more transparent, accountable, and comprehensive. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the State, Tribal, and Local Species Transparency and Recovery Act to support greater involvement and assurances for local entities in federal agency decision-making.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to bring more transparency in federal decision-making to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). Under existing law, federal agencies are not required to make publicly available the information and other data acquired from studies for proposed ESA listing determinations. These agencies are not required to submit a reference list of the studies used in the proposed regulation listing that is published in the Federal Register, nor are they required to provide complete citations to studies for any proposed ESA listings. The 21st Century Endangered Species Transparency Act simply requires the data collected and utilized by federal agencies for ESA listing decisions to be made publicly available on the Internet. This is a straightforward, transparent update that will bring this outdated law into the 2lst Century. The ESA became law long before our modern day technological advances, which have provided instant access to information and data online. Providing the factual data behind listing decisions will further the cause of open, transparent, and accountable government. Independent analysis and verification of underlying data used for these decisions will only strengthen the fundamental purpose of the ESA, to keep our native plants and animals from the danger of extinction, while ensuring listing decisions are based on sound science. By making this simple change to the ESA, we can ensure federal agencies are relying solely upon the best available scientific and commercial data, and not on unpublished studies or opinions. This legislation also includes important protections for matters of privacy. The bill requires the scientific and commercial data used for the basis of proposed listings to be made publicly available, so long as it protects state data privacy laws and importantly, the rights to privacy for individuals and property owners. With today's advanced access to instant information at the tip of your fingers, all citizens have the right to the information federal agencies use to propose rules and regulations. This bill will further advance transparency in agency rulemakings and listing determinations, and is a simple, straightforward update to the existing law. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the 21st Century Endangered Species Transparency Act.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the retirement of my dear friend, and fellow WSU alumnus, Mr. Gary Petersen. Following his graduation in 1965, Gary began a distinguished career on behalf of our country and notable Washington institutions, such as the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Hanford, Energy Northwest, the State Department, and, recently, as vice president of the Tri-City Development Council. For 5 decades, Gary has been a devoted advocate for the Tri-Cities, and his efforts have been critical to the area's growth and development. He is also an unwavering proponent of PNNL and the defense nuclear waste cleanup mission at Hanford. In Congress, Gary has provided me with critical counsel, while generously serving on my Hanford Working Group. His integrity and distinguished career were recognized with his 2013 induction into WSU's Murrow Alumni Hall of Achievement. I am honored to call Gary a friend, and will be forever grateful for his patriotism and dedicated service to the Tri-Cities and our great Nation.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce my legislation, the Bureau of Reclamation Water Project Streamlining Act. This legislation will help many communities in the west that have been severely impacted by the recent droughts affecting the western United States. The legislation requires the Bureau of Reclamation to accelerate studies and provide more accountability in the agency's process to study the feasibility of new and/or expanded surface water storage, rural and Title XVI water projects, as well as water recycling projects. By streamlining Reclamation's environmental planning and study process for these water projects, the bill will ensure that communities in the arid West can address the critical need for water supplies that grow with demand. This is accomplished by applying the same streamlined water project development process used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which were established under the Water Resources Reform Development Act of 2014, to the Bureau of Reclamation for surface water, storage, infrastructure, and recycling projects. Water is an indispensable resource in Central Washington and is the foundation on which our future will be built. However, water has become increasingly limited and the current supply and infrastructure is unable to meet existing human and environmental needs. The droughts and water shortages that have impacted much of the western U.S. highlight the critical need for new water supplies that are able to meet this growing demand. A streamlined process for new water storage projects is vital to prepare effectively for droughts and provide adequate water resources for future development. This bill improves the Bureau of Reclamation's permitting process to create new opportunities for water storage, recycling, and rural water projects. Put simply, my bill reforms the current cumbersome and lengthy process so that there is a mechanism to build new water and infrastructure projects in Central Washington and across the west. I welcome all members to join me in supporting this legislation and I urge its swift passage through the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce my legislation, the Farm Regulatory Certainty Act. In 2015, a federal judge ruled in a citizen suit that dissolved manure nitrates constitute a ``solid waste'' under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Four dairies in Washington State that were proactively working with the EPA to address nutrient management issues at their dairies were held culpable of ``open dumping'' by a federal judge. A farmer myself, I firmly believe farmers have and must continue to lead the charge on good stewardship and conservation, which this ruling undermined. While there are a number of statutes that do govern agricultural nutrient management practices, Congress never intended for RCRA to be one of those statutes. In fact, the EPA's own regulations promulgated back in the 1970s agree that agricultural wastes, such as manures and fertilizer, were not intended to be governed under this law. This misguided ruling has placed farmers across the country in a legal uncertainty. It is incomprehensible that Congress and EPA intended that agricultural nutrients be exempt from this law, and then have a court find farmers at fault for non-compliance with the very law they are exempt from. Farmers need to know with certainty to what rules apply to them. The legislation I introduce today would clarify and reaffirm that RCRA was not intended to govern agricultural nutrient management activities. Moreover, if a farmer is already engaged in legal action and is diligently working with the state or federal regulators to address nutrient management issues, then they would be preempted from citizen suits under this bill. We want to continue to encourage farmers to be good, proactive stewards, and create an climate where farmers can feel comfortable working with regulators to address stewardship issues--not have farmers fear that documents they provide to regulators will be acquired by third-parties and used against them in ``double-jeopardy''-like lawsuits. This commonsense legislation will clarify Congress' intent on this statute, and work to restore a relationship of trust and confidence between farmers and regulators.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation disapproving of the Compensatory Mitigation Policy (CMP) rule finalized in the final days of the Obama administration. On December 27, 2016, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) released its final Endangered Species Act (ESA) CMP, which violates existing environmental law and puts future economic development across the country at risk. This rule establishes policies that are a significant departure from existing practices regarding compensatory mitigation and limits private-sector, voluntary involvement in developing compensatory mitigation plans. My legislation utilizes the Congressional Review Act to block this dangerous rule and will prevent the potential catastrophic impacts it would have on our nation's economy. The CMP exceeds USFWS' statutory authority by adopting the mitigation goals of ``net conservation gain'' and ``no net loss,'' which are not grounded in federal statute. This directive is a significant departure from existing practice and runs counter to current law. The policy will lead to an extensive, time-consuming valuation process in which development projects are required to initiate an assessment process, as well as undertake ``advance mitigation,'' that could tie up many economic projects in burdensome, costly procedures. This overbroad policy could jeopardize an extensive range of economic development activities in every corner of the U.S., while also impacting a wide-range of industries, including: agriculture, forestry, mining, natural resource development, energy production, conservation projects, and building and road construction. The final CMP will also have significant strategic, legal, and financial implications for development projects large and small, while ensnaring future economic growth in a maze of permitting setbacks and bureaucratic red-tape. We must protect our country's economic future and ensure burdensome rules and regulations promulgated by a bloated bureaucracy do not threaten desperately needed job creation and economic growth. The integrity of the law is threatened by misguided federal policies like the USFWS's CMP rule, and I urge all members to join me in supporting this legislation to block yet another oppressive and overreaching regulation promulgated by the previous administration.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, just yesterday, the House Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 70, providing for the consideration of H.J. Res. 38, legislation utilizing the Congressional Review Act to overturn the final stream protection rule promulgated by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, or the OSMRE, which is at the Department of the Interior. The rule provides for consideration of the joint resolution under a closed rule, as is customary with these CRA measures. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of a critical measure that will help protect American businesses and families from the Obama administration's rampant regulatory overreach. H.J. Res. 38 disapproves of the final stream protection rule which was released by the Department of the Interior on December 19, 2016, representing yet another last-minute, midnight regulation from the previous administration. This burdensome rule seeks to govern the interaction between surface mining operations and streams by establishing a buffer-zone rule that blocks mining within 100 feet of those streams. This was done, despite the Department of the Interior's own reports, which shows that virtually all coal mines in this country have no offsite impacts, they are being operated safely, and that lands are being restored successfully under existing Federal and State regulation. During the rulemaking process, OSMRE and the Department of the Interior ignored existing regulatory success at the Federal and the State level and shut out the cooperating agencies, the States who are responsible for enforcing Federal mining regulations. In 2015, 9 of the 10 cooperating States withdrew as cooperating agencies in the rulemaking and development process, due to OSMRE's exclusionary tactics, failure to provide for meaningful participation, and continual limiting of the States' involvement over the past several years. The National Environmental Policy Act or, as we know it as, NEPA, requires OSMRE, as the lead rulemaking agency, to involve States in the drafting of the regulation and requires them to involve States. These failures, and the restrictive tactics that were employed by OSMRE, led the House Natural Resources Committee chairman, Mr. Rob Bishop of Utah, to send a letter in 2015 to the GAO, the Government Accountability Office, requesting a review of OSMRE's compliance with NEPA in the agencies' development and drafting of the proposed stream protection rule. Ample evidence exists that OSMRE excluded these States from the NEPA process, in contradiction of both NEPA regulations and the memoranda of understanding between OSMRE and the States. Mr. Speaker, the stream protection rule unilaterally rewrites over 400 existing rules and regulations. It threatens over one-third of the Nation's coal mining workforce and will send repercussions throughout the broader U.S. economy. The final rule is the definition of a one- size-fits-all solution due to OSMRE's failure to conduct the 7-year rewrite in a transparent process consistent with their statutory requirements to engage State and local stakeholders. An economic analysis conducted by the National Mining Association found that the total number of jobs at risk of loss is somewhere between 112,000 and 280,000 people, approximately 30 to 75 percent of the current industry employment levels. Further, the misguided regulation would jeopardize 40,000 to 77,000 jobs in both surface and underground mining operations, industries that are still reeling from 8 years of overregulation from the previous administration. And while the Obama administration never seemed to mind the consequences of its actions on hardworking Americans, I can assure you that the new, unified Republican government is opposed to ineffective regulations like this one which unnecessarily put people out of work, raise energy costs on consumers, and do nothing to improve the environment. By passing this rule, we have the opportunity to consider a resolution that will prevent this regulation from removing over one- half of the total U.S. coal reserves available for extraction, while also reducing oppressive barriers to responsible coal production. The Congressional Review Act of 1996 was enacted to be a powerful tool to allow Congress to overturn last-minute regulations from the previous administration, under an expedited legislative process. If Congress passes a joint resolution disapproving the rule, and the resolution becomes a law, the rule cannot take effect or continue. CRAs are designed to address and invalidate problematic rules from the previous administration, and the stream protection rule clearly fits the bill. Furthermore, this CRA provides certainty to State regulatory bodies tasked with regulating 97 percent of the coal mines in the United States and enforcing Federal mining regulations by strengthening the State primacy framework provided in the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. Blocking the final stream protection rule will restore an important stream of State and Federal tax revenue associated with coal extraction across the country that is benefiting hardworking American taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, every Member of this body wants to protect the environment, ensure clean water and clean air for our citizens, and encourage innovative and responsible ways to produce energy. However, these goals are not mutually exclusive, as some opponents of this legislation will argue. It is past time that we embrace commonsense, practical Federal rules and regulations that protect the environment and the countless Americans working in the industries that support our economy and provide for greater domestic energy independence. The rule we consider here today provides for the consideration of a bill that is critically important to the future economic growth and job growth of our country. By passing this CRA, we can take a badly needed step toward protecting American families and businesses from the rampant executive overreach that will be the defining achievement of the past administration. I urge my colleagues to support this rule, as well as the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I do not yield.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I am reiterating my earlier announcement that all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only, and I will not yield for any other purpose.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, getting back to the issue at hand and the stream protection rule, there are many points that my friend from Florida brought up. One occurred to me as well: Is this really a midnight rule; or could something that was started in 2008 really be considered as something that was shoved through at the last minute? I did ask that question, and the answer is a resounding ``yes.'' During the process in 2011, some of the reports came out that were leaked that the Department did not see as favorable as it related to jobs and the economy and the negative impact that it would have on that, so they stopped the process, shutting out the States violating the memorandum of understanding that they are required to work with the States on the rulemaking process leaving those States with no recourse but to withdraw from the process. In 2015, this Congress told them to reengage with the States, which they did to some degree, making it necessary for States to actually pay for the scientific evidence that was necessary for them to be engaged. So there are several problems that cause this to be an issue that we need to address today, and certainly making it a midnight rule, the last thing done as the administration walks out the door, qualifies this as something that we should be considering for many reasons and on many levels. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), who is my good friend.