Preventing Government Waste and Protecting Coal Mining Jobs in America

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. 2824.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It is well-known the Obama administration has waged a long-running war on coal, which last year a White House adviser admitted ``is exactly what's needed,'' but this is not only a war on coal. It is a war on jobs, our economy, affordable energy, small businesses, and the household budgets of American families. Already faced with higher home heating costs, middle class families will be further squeezed if the Obama administration is successful in its attempts to shut down coal production.

One of the ways the administration has carried out this war on coal is through the reckless rewrite of a coal production regulation, the 2008 Stream Buffer Zone Rule. Shortly after taking office, the Obama administration discarded the 2008 rule that went through 5 years of extensive public comment and environmental review. Since then, the administration has spent over 10 million taxpayer dollars in working to rewrite this rule, including hiring new contractors, then only to dismiss those same contractors once it was publicly revealed that the administration's proposed rewrite would cost 7,000 jobs and cause economic harm in 22 States. A report released by our House Natural Resources Committee staff in September of 2012, following years of oversight and investigations, exposed the gross mismanagement of the rulemaking process, potential political interference, and widespread economic harm the proposed regulation would cause.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of the Interior's Office of Inspector General, or IG, released a report with similar findings. However, what is more troubling is that the IG has identified significant ongoing problems with the rulemaking process. To make matters worse, they are refusing to disclose those problems to us here in Congress. For example, there is an entire section of the report that we have received, entitled ``Issues with the New Contract,'' that have been almost completely blacked out. Despite our repeated requests, Deputy Inspector General Mary Kendall has refused to give Congress an unredacted copy of this report. In a letter, she states that the Department of the Interior decided that it should be withheld from the committee.

The IG is charged with being an independent watchdog for Congress. It is completely unacceptable and inappropriate for the IG to be taking orders from the Interior Department, especially about what information to withhold from us here in Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I don't take what I am going to say lightly. That is why, today, I have issued a subpoena to the Department's Inspector General Kendall for this information that she has withheld from us. If the IG discovered ongoing issues with the way the Department is currently conducting this rulemaking process, they have a responsibility and a duty to share that information with Congress now. The committee is not asking the IG for materials produced by the Department, but we are asking for materials and interviews produced by the IG's staff.

The Obama administration's rulemaking process has been and continues to be an unmitigated disaster. Despite having spent millions of taxpayer dollars, they have absolutely nothing to show for it and, to date, haven't even produced a draft. Meanwhile, States, industry, and America's coal miners are left in limbo, unsure of what the operating rules are on the ground. Without the 2008 rule, we are left with a rule that was put in place in 1983.

That is why we are here today--to consider H.R. 2824, the Preventing Government Waste and Protecting Coal Mining Jobs in America Act. This legislation will put an end to the years of ongoing waste and dysfunction. It will put in place a responsible process to ensure there is no rush to recklessly regulate.

First, Mr. Chairman, it stops the administration's unnecessary rewrite and implements the 2008 Stream Buffer Zone Rule that I mentioned took 5 years to put in place. It then directs the Department to responsibly study the impact of the rule for a prescribed period of time prior to initiating another new rule. This will provide certainty to the economy, to the individual States, and allow a clear examination of what may be needed and changed in the future. This bill will make certain that a new rule is written properly.

Now, some will attempt to criticize this bill for the fact that it puts in place the 2008 rule that was vacated on a very narrow technical ground by a Federal judge last month. There is really nothing new here, however, because this is the exact outcome that the administration has been seeking for over 5 years--to get rid of the 2008 rule. But let's be clear what the court ruling and, subsequently, the Department's actions really mean.

The court ruling strikes down the more protective 2008 rule and sets us back 30 years to a less restrictive 1983 rule. The 2008 rule is more modern and more protective in limiting the impacts of coal mining than the 1983 rule, but one Federal judge ruled that the 2008 rule must be set aside due to a narrow procedural technicality. This judge ruled, because the 2008 rule didn't have formal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service on possible impacts to endangered species, the entire rule

should be set aside and, thus, revert back to the 1983 rule.

Mr. Chairman, for the record, there were multiple meetings and discussions and consultations with Fish and Wildlife in proposing the 2008 rule regarding species when the 2008 rule was written, and it was done in a published and transparent fashion over a multiple-year period. Comments were taken and recommendations were made, but the bureaucratic process wasn't done precisely so, and as a result, this judge struck it down. Compare this conscientious effort, which was done to protect species in the 2008 rule, with the fact that there was absolutely zero consultation of protecting species in the 1983 rule.

What could be the responsible thing to do? Clearly, it would be to implement the more modern and protective 2008 rule. What does the Obama administration say? It says let's go back to 1983. Why should we go back? It simply makes no sense to discard a modern rule, where we know the ESA consultation took place, for a 30-year-old rule that we know had no ESA consultations.

Perhaps we should look to the people whom the Obama administration hired to write a rule of its own. In case notes that the committee obtained from the IG's office during their investigation, it quotes one of the current contractors, admitting, ``The 1983 rule was less restrictive than the 2008 rule.'' In the same case notes, it also states about the current contractor that, although she is a Democrat, the Stream Protection Rule appears to be an ``effort to kill coal mining.'' There you have it--straight from the mouth of the person who is working on the current rewrite--an admission that the new rule is an effort to ``kill coal mining.''

That is why we must take action today to stop this administration. Not only are they attempting to impose a new coal regulation that will destroy thousands of American mining jobs, but they have also wasted 5 years and over 10 million taxpayer dollars on a process that has been completely dysfunctional and misguided.

Enough is enough. Republicans want to create an America that works, and that requires access to affordable energy. If we do not stop the administration from implementing its new coal regulation, thousands of Americans will be out of work, and home heating costs for working middle class families will rise.

Let's pass this legislation to protect American taxpayer dollars, to protect American jobs, and to end this administration's reckless, wasteful rewrite by putting in place a responsible process that will allow a proper new rule to be written.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), the subcommittee chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee dealing with this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), the author of this legislation.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), a new Member, not necessarily a brand-new Member, but a newer Member.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes, again, to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), the chairman of the subcommittee dealing with this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).

Mr. Chairman, I would advise my friend from New Jersey I am prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on my side?

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, to hear my friends on the other side of the aisle argue about this, they are making arguments that are pre-1977. Now, why do I say that? Because they are talking about their perception of mountaintop mining or surface mining probably in general. Well, it is precisely that argument that led to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 under the Carter administration--with a Democrat Congress, I might add. So that bill passed to allow for surface mining.

Now, there is always necessary rulemaking that comes after that, and the latest rulemaking prior to the turn of this century was in 1983 under the Reagan administration. So the Bush administration looked because of some court test that maybe we ought to rewrite this rule; and, Mr. Chairman, contrary to what my friends on the other side of the aisle said that that was a late-breaking rule, it took 5 years to put that together--5 years to put that together.

So, as a result, because of this court decision that ended up vacating because of the technicality of the 2008 rule, the issue before us is this: Do we put the 2008 rule in place, which is what the focus of this legislation is, and then look forward to further rulemaking, or do we vacate the 2008 rule and go back to 1983? That is what the choice is.

What I find that is so interesting about my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is that everybody acknowledges that the 2008 rule is more restrictive--more restrictive--but they want to go back to the 1983 rule. I find that hard to understand, but at least that is what appears to be their argument.

So, Mr. Chairman, we think the responsible way to do this is to take into consideration what the Bush administration did for 5 years, looking at proper rulemaking that, by the way, looked into the Endangered Species Act. That is something the '83 rule did not look at at all. So we think that is a better way to put that in place right now. It is a more restrictive rule that industry understands, the States understand, and it is probably better for energy certainty in this country.

So I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I find it hard sometimes to listen to this debate, especially when I hear my good friends on the other side of the aisle defending anything that the Reagan administration did. But they are doing it, so I will acknowledge that there is some substance there, but let me just go back to what I mentioned in my closing arguments.

SMCRA was passed in 1977. The Reagan rulemaking was 6 years after that. So there has not been an update on that rule--right now--for 30 years,

but it was more likely probably 20 years when the Bush administration thought it should be updated.

Now I want to get right to the heart of the matter and the reason that the environmental community does not like the 2008 rule and instead opts for the 1983 Reagan rule. They don't like it because the 2008 rule will provide clarity and certainty in the SMCRA process, which of course will free up job creation, meaning that there is going to be some certainty in coal production; rather, the environmental community would like to use loopholes that they found in the 1983 rulemaking to take people to court.

That is exactly why, from my perspective, that this amendment is offered, to go back to the Reagan times so there can be probably more litigation and less certainty in rulemaking of surface mining.

The gentleman mentioned, for example the 100-foot buffer zone. The Bush rule has a 100-foot buffer zone just like the Reagan rule. Nothing changed there. The only changes in the long run in rulemaking is certainty, and those who like to go to court don't like certainty. That is why I believe we have this improbable defense of anything that Reagan did, because they see that over a period of time there are ways that you can manipulate that to their advantage.

I think the Bush rule--which I said several times and is even acknowledged by the coal mining industry that it is more restrictive but has more certainty in it--is a better model, and it is precisely what this legislation does. It takes us to the 2008 rule.

This amendment takes us back to the 1983 rule, and I don't think that is a proper way to go. I urge rejection of this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Very briefly, and maybe we are caught here in semantics, but the issue--I have said several times and it has been acknowledged that the 2008 rule is more restrictive. My friend on the other side of the aisle and the author of the amendment said, ``Let me be clear, the 2008 rule is not as protective.''

I think when we are talking about protecting the environment, that ``restrictive'' and ``protective'' are probably synonymous in nature. So when we hear statements made by the industry that the 2008 rule is more restrictive, I take them at their word.

But, Mr. Chairman, I have to make this point and this point is very important because we need to have a certainty supply of energy in this country if we are going to have a growing economy. I am in favor of all of the above, and that certainly includes coal. Unless you have certainty in the regulations, you will not have an energy source.

As I have said right from the start--and as a matter of fact, many have acknowledged within the administration that this administration has a war on coal--this provides certainty. It is contrary to where the administration obviously wants to go because it does provide certainty with our energy production. So I would urge rejection of this amendment, which would take us back to a rule that would be more potentially litigious in nature to something that has certainty. With that, I urge rejection of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, before I speak directly as to why we should not adopt this amendment, let me respond to the rhetorical question that my friend from Pennsylvania asked when he said:

How can you say that this administration rule, which hasn't been promulgated yet, will cost jobs?

Well, I would tell the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, that there were leaked documents of the first initial rewrite of the 2008 amendment, leaked documents that said that the contractor that was hired by the administration to rewrite the rule came back with the conclusion that 7,000 jobs would be lost in 22 States. So what was the response of the Obama administration? They fired the contractor; it was the wrong message.

Now they are still in the rulemaking process. But, Mr. Chairman, I have to tell you, I doubt that the philosophy has changed from that very way because they are trying to manipulate which rules to follow to minimize what we found out in the initial go-round.

So let me just talk about this amendment. This amendment is not only unnecessary, it is actually harmful to protecting states' rights. Under SMCRA of 1977, State regulations have to meet or exceed the new regulation issued by the Office of Surface Mining. The gentleman's amendment would eliminate the ability of States to meet these rules by mandating that States can only exceed the OSM rules. This ignores both the history of Federal-State regulations with regard to rulemaking but also the need for flexibility in the States to meet the OSM rules while protecting their own geology, hydrology, and community interests.

Again, States already have the ability to change regulations to meet or exceed Federal rules with regards to all aspects of the regulatory regime under SMCRA.

We should not limit the ability to have flexibility in meeting the new rules. This amendment would mandate that you could only change that by increasing it. I think, Mr. Chairman, that is the wrong way to go. I think the amendment is ill-advised.

I urge rejection of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor to discuss a pending nomination, that of Harvard Law School Professor David Barron to a seat on the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

This nomination is exceptionally controversial and was voted out of our committee, the Judiciary Committee, on a 10-to-8 vote. Even a cursory look at Professor Barron's record reveals views on the Constitution and on federalism that are well outside the mainstream. But I want to put all those views aside and speak about this nomination from another point of view.

So today I discuss Professor Barron's service as Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel in 2009 and 2010.

According to multiple media sources, while heading up the Office of Legal Counsel, Professor Barron was instrumental in formulating the legal arguments that this administration used to justify the targeted killing of American citizens by drone strikes.

According to press reports, Professor Barron wrote at least two legal opinions laying out those arguments. We also know the Department of Justice relied on the legal arguments Professor Barron formulated to justify the targeted killing of an American citizen in a tribal region of Yemen in September 2011.

In a May 2013 letter to the chairman of our Judiciary Committee, the Attorney General wrote that ``since 2009, the United States, in the conduct of U.S. counterterrorism operations against Al-Qaeda and its associated forces outside of areas of active hostilities, has specifically targeted and killed one U.S. citizen.''

According to press reports, that individual was the first American citizen placed on the CIA's disposition matrix, better known as the kill list. However, the Attorney General conceded that three additional Americans located outside the United States have been killed by drone strikes since 2011.

According to the Attorney General's letter, these Americans were killed even though they ``were not specifically targeted by the United States'' as part of a counterterrorism operation.

But today I am not debating Professor Barron's legal arguments related to the drone strikes. The fact is that Senators aren't in a position to make an informed judgment about the nominee because of the way this administration has handled the issue, so I wish to address our constitutional duty with respect to the nomination.

Article II, Section 2, instructs us to give advice and consent on the President's judicial nominees. That is not a procedural technicality, it is a constitutional imperative. These happen to be lifetime appointments, and the men and women we confirm to the Federal bench play a vital role in the life of our Republic.

It is my view this body cannot, as things stand today, fully and appropriately discharge its constitutional duty to advise and consent with respect to this nominee. I will briefly address some recent developments in the courts that lead me to that conclusion.

On April 21 of this year, the Second Circuit issued an opinion in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by two New York Times reporters and the American Civil Liberties Union against the Department of Justice, the Department of Defense, and the CIA. That lawsuit began in December 2011 after the administration denied a Freedom of Information Act request from the New York Times for documents on the administration's targeted killing of American citizens outside this country. Specifically, the Times requested ``a copy of all Office of Legal Counsel memorandums analyzing the circumstances under which it would be lawful for United States armed forces or intelligence community assets to target for killing a United States citizen who is deemed to be a terrorist.''

The administration refused to provide anything in response to that request by the New York Times. In fact, initially the administration wouldn't even acknowledge that any responsive documents even existed, but as the litigation developed, the Department of Justice identified a single document but claimed it was exempt from disclosure under FOIA. That document is the so-called OLC-DOD memorandum.

Essentially, according to the Second Circuit, that is Professor Barron's memo providing the legal justification for targeted killing of American citizens abroad with drones. Basically, the court reasoned that because the administration had leaked and then officially released the so-called Department of Justice White Paper on the drone program, the administration then waived any basis for withholding the Barron drone memo under the Freedom of Information Act. Therefore, the Second Circuit ordered the administration to produce a redacted copy of this Barron drone memo to the New York Times.

The Second Circuit's opinion confirms that Professor Barron wrote this drone memo. However, according to press reports going as far back as September 2010, Professor Barron had written at least one other drone memo on the targeted killing of Americans while he was at the Office of Legal Counsel. That second memo wasn't addressed by the Second Circuit's opinion and hasn't been disclosed publicly.

We also don't know whether Professor Barron wrote or was involved in producing other materials related to the drone program that have yet to be provided to the full Senate. For example, the Second Circuit has identified two additional memos from the Office of Legal Counsel that it ruled were not subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Moreover, according to some media reports, there are quite a few additional memos on the drone program. In fact, the Second Circuit opinion repeats the ACLU's contention that there may be as many as 11 total memos related to this drone program.

This fact didn't escape the Second Circuit. In sending the case back to the district court for further litigation, the circuit left open the possibility that there might be other documents subject to disclosure down the road. The court said, after giving the government another chance to submit additional reasons for withholding the documents: ``The district court may, as appropriate, order the release of any documents that are not properly withheld.''

Let me be very clear. My colleagues should be on notice that more of these documents very well may be made public down the road. In my view, that is all the more reason for the full Senate to receive all materials on the drone program, written by and related to Professor Barron, from the Office of Legal Counsel and do it now before Members decide and are held accountable for their vote on this nominee.

It is impossible to overstate the importance of these materials to our consideration of Professor Barron's nomination. The memos and whatever other materials Professor Barron drafted as the acting head of the Office of Legal Counsel provides the legal framework for the administration's policies related to killing American citizens abroad. We know this because the administration itself has said so. In testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, CIA Director Brennan testified that advice from the Office of Legal Counsel on the drone program ``establishes the legal boundaries in which we can operate.''

Once again, let me be clear. The Senate cannot properly discharge its duty to advise and consent on this nomination without having a full picture of this nominee's legal philosophy. A very legitimate question is, How can the Senate predict what kind of a judge he will be if we don't know what kind of a lawyer he has been?

The Senate simply cannot evaluate whether this nominee is fit for a lifetime appointment to one of the Nation's most important courts without

complete access to his writings. It is even more important now that we know some of those writings concern perhaps some of the most controversial issues the Office of Legal Counsel has addressed in recent years; that is, the use of drones to kill American citizens abroad.

Time and again this President and even this Attorney General have promised transparency. They have made these promises to us. They have made promises to the American people. We all know in our oversight capacity of trying to get information out of this administration that they haven't delivered on these promises.

In that letter from the Department of Justice to Chairman Leahy that I mentioned just a few minutes ago, the Attorney General claimed this administration ``has provided an unprecedented level of transparency as to how sensitive counterterrorism operations are conducted.'' The Attorney General also wrote that the administration was taking all steps to ensure that congressional committees ``are fully informed of the legal basis'' for targeted killings of American citizens.

Again, those assertions aren't accurate when it comes to this nominee's track record at the Department of Justice. If press reports are accurate, this administration hasn't made all the relevant materials available to all Members of this body yet. I am not the first Member of this body to point this out.

I give several of my Democrat colleagues credit for publicly drawing attention to this administration's shortcomings in respect to this administration sufficiently giving us information. I agree with them that this nomination cannot go forward until this body, every Member of this body, is given access to any and all secret legal opinions this nominee wrote on this critical issue of the constitutional basis for the President subjecting an American to killing by drone without trial. Every legal opinion this nominee wrote related to this issue ought to be made available. I wholeheartedly concur in the sentiment of my colleagues, some of them Democrats, on this issue.

Again, I think all Senators should bear in mind that these documents may very well become public in the future. Are Senators who are up for reelection in a few short months ready to vote on this nominee without knowing the full extent of his writings on a topic as serious as the killing of an American citizen by a drone? Are those Senators ready to go home to face their constituents and explain that they cast a vote on that nominee without knowing all of the facts?

On Tuesday the administration announced it will provide the full Senate access to the Barron drone memo that it was ordered to make public by the Second Circuit.

Is this what the most transparent administration in American history looks like, disclosing a memo that a court has already ordered it to disclose?

Keep in mind this administration agreed to the disclosure only after the Second Circuit order and a threat from the American Civil Liberties Union. Is that transparency?

In fact, I am having a bit of a flashback to a statement I made before this body just last week about another judicial nominee. That nominee led the administration's effort to stonewall congressional oversight into the murder of four Americans at our diplomatic mission in Benghazi. That nominee refused to comply with congressional subpoenas and assisted the administration's unlawful withholding of documents from Congress. The Benghazi documents that should have been turned over years ago weren't released until a judge forced the administration to turn over those documents by issuing a court order in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

Just like the memos I have been talking about today, I am starting to see a pattern, and I am starting to understand what this administration means by the word ``transparency.'' It means ``show me a court order first.''

Incidentally, I have been for more transparency at the Office of Legal Counsel for years, and even more so since January, when President Obama threatened to aggressively use Executive orders to circumvent Congress. It is the job of the Office of Legal Counsel to ensure that Executive orders are constitutional.

On January 31 I wrote the Attorney General to ask him to disclose the Office of Legal Counsel's work related to Executive orders issued by the President. I still haven't received a response.

I will also note that Professor Barron himself has gone on record publicly and urged increased transparency at his former workplace, the Office of Legal Counsel, and for that we ought to give him due credit.

In fact, the nominee said this about the OLC--the Office of Legal Counsel:

OLC should follow a presumption in favor of timely

publication of its written legal opinions. Such disclosure

helps to ensure executive branch adherence to the rule of law

and guard against excessive claims of executive authority.

It couldn't be said any better by me in regard to the letter I wrote on January 31. He went on to say:

. . . transparency also promotes confidence in the

lawfulness of government action.

That is a very admirable standard. I would like to call it the Barron standard, and I hope the administration follows the Barron standard with respect to informing the full Senate about this nominee's work in the Office of Legal Counsel. The administration's offer to disclose the memo it was already ordered to make public by a court isn't good enough, and it shouldn't be good enough for the other 99 Senators, because this is already their legal obligation.

The administration must turn over not only the memo addressed by the Second Circuit, but every legal opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel written by and related to Professor Barron on this issue. Given the lack of clarity thus far, I call on the White House to provide every Senator with access to all Barron materials related to the administration's drone program.

I am also calling on the White House to comply with the Second Circuit's order and release to the public--not just to Senators--a redacted copy of the Barron drone memo that it addressed in its opinion. This is the administration's legal obligation.

Our obligation, as Senators, is to ensure our constituents have full access to information a Federal Court has ordered to be made public before we vote on the nomination. Without full disclosure to the full Senate of all materials on this nominee's involvement in the legal case for the administration's drone program, this nomination should not proceed.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my good friend from Florida, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Just last week, I found myself standing here, managing a rule for two very similar bills. At the time, I thought we were on a merry-go-round, aimlessly moving in useless circles. I will stand by that analogy again today.

When similar bills came before Congress last session, the Senate didn't pass them. The President said he would not sign them, as he has this particular legislation. It seems to me that these measures are a foregone conclusion.

Ultimately, the same tired talking points might be a fun ride for some, but they will never actually take you anywhere. This kind of spinning in circles is a favorite tactic, it seems, of my friends on the other side of the aisle.

For example, this Congress has already taken 109 antienvironmental votes. Last Congress, it was 247. These were votes against clear air, against clean water, and to destroy our planet for future generations.

Under Republican leadership, we have also voted to repeal, as we did a day or so ago, the Affordable Care Act 50 different times, a law that, in many respects, has led to millions of Americans signing up for health insurance that didn't have it before.

And I will continue to ask my colleagues: If you don't like that particular measure, where is yours that would replace it? And apparently, nothing is forthcoming, at least until this time.

Based on the frequency of these quixotic votes, it is obvious that my friends across the aisle have given up or are not interested in governing or addressing any of the issues that are most pressing to this Nation.

Consider, for instance, that there are 2 million Americans relying on Congress to extend unemployment insurance, with close to 200,000 of them being unemployed veterans who have sacrificed time and again for our country.

Last week, I said the following:

We should be spending the House's time on extending

unemployment insurance, working on comprehensive immigration

reform, and raising the minimum wage.

My friends on the other side of the aisle have continued to ignore the plight of middle class and working poor Americans, immigrants hoping for a better life for their families, and denying the undeniable impact of climate change, just to name a few.

We should be raising the minimum wage in order to give millions of hardworking Americans the pay they have earned. Nearly 5 years have passed since the last increase in the Federal minimum wage. Currently, a full-time minimum wage worker makes less than $16,000 per year, which is below the poverty line for a family of two or more.

My friends did not take my suggestions last week, and I doubt they will take them this week. Instead, we are considering two more pointless bills that will go nowhere. One of them, the acronym for it is RAPID. That is correct. Rapidly and fastly, it will go nowhere.

The first of today's bills, H.R. 2641, ignores the fact that, for more than 40 years, the National Environmental Policy Act has provided an effective framework for all types of proposed actions that require Federal approval pursuant to a Federal law, such as the Clean Water Act.

H.R. 2641 is based on the assumption that the NEPA environmental review and permitting process results in project delays.

However, when we considered this measure last Congress, the Congressional Research Service reported that delays in construction project approvals ``are more often tied to local, State, and project- specific factors.'' These factors include ``primarily local/State agency priorities, project funding levels, local opposition to a project, project complexity, or late changes in project scope,'' not to mention the litigation that goes on surrounding these measures.

CRS goes even further, reporting that even most environmental project delays are not the result of NEPA, but actually due to ``laws other than NEPA.'' The measure undermines current regulatory protections and could jeopardize public health and safety by prioritizing speed over meaningful analysis.

Now, turning to H.R. 2824, the other measure included in today's rule, which, like the 50 times that we voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, my Republican friends have done that, they have also offered 50 rules which are not open rules in spite of the fact that we began this session by the Speaker of the House saying that this would be the most open House that we have had.

H.R. 2824 included in this rule is no more productive than the previous legislation offered. The legislation would overturn a court decision in order to block a buffer requirement designed to prevent damage to waterways from surface coal mining operations. These are protections that President Ronald Reagan put in place.

The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that over 500 mountains have been destroyed by the practice of mountaintop removal mining, more than 1.2 million acres of forest has been eliminated, and nearly 2,000 miles of streams have been buried or polluted by these mining projects. I wonder what part of knocking a mountaintop off do people not understand as destruction, and if it is to be, that it should be done carefully.

These are protections for all of us in our society. As many as 60,000 additional cases of cancer in central Appalachia are directly linked to mountaintop removal, and more than 700 additional deaths from heart disease occur each year.

Last month, West Virginia University scientists published a study confirming high air pollution levels around mountaintop removal coal mines, suggesting a link to the higher rates of cardiovascular disease, birth defects, and cancer that is seen in these communities.

Instead of addressing these issues, H.R. 2824 would reinstate a George W. Bush administration rule that essentially prohibits the United States Department of the Interior from implementing any protections for streams against mountaintop removal and coal mining.

Let me lift the comment of Judge Charles Haden in a case called Bragg v. Robertson. The judge says:

When valley fills are permitted in intermittent and

perennial streams, they destroy those stream segments. The

normal flow and gradient of the stream is now buried under

millions of cubic yards of excess spoil waste material, an

extremely adverse effect. If there are fish, they cannot

migrate. If there is any life form that cannot acclimate to

life deep in a rubble pile, it is eliminated. No effect on

related environmental values is more adverse than

obliteration. Under a valley fill, the water quality of the

stream becomes zero. Because there is no stream, there is no

water quality.

The Bush rule in '08 was vacated by the District of Columbia District Court on February 20, 2014. The Obama administration started to draft new stream protections upon taking office, into which the minority has conducted a long, fruitless investigation. Indeed, the years of investigation have uncovered no misconduct. The only results of the investigation are wasted time and taxpayer money, sending over 13,500 pages of documents, 25 hours of audio recordings, 19,000 staff hours, and costing the United States Department of the Interior and Office of Surface Mining approximately $1.5 million.

We saw an example yesterday in one of our committees investigating the Internal Revenue Service for something that just simply has not occurred in any partisan fashion. And I can demonstrate that because, if one believes that the IRS only went after conservative organizations within the time period that was being investigated by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, then it was not during that period that my church, Mt. Hermon AME Church in Fort Lauderdale, received the same kind of notices that are being complained about; and what we did was what everybody has every right to do, which is make the necessary appeal, and we were successful in that regard.

All of these partisan witch hunts need to stop. We are a better people than this, and we should be about the business of the people of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, today's measure exists as partisan talking points, bumper sticker talk by my Republican colleagues, rather than serious legislation to move this country forward.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would advise my good friend from Florida that I have no additional speakers at this time and would be prepared to close. So I reserve the balance of my time if you have additional speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, one of the sages of America who is often quoted is Will Rogers. One of the things that I paraphrase that he said was: Buy land, because we are not making any more of that. And I use it as an analogy for mountaintop mining, knocking off the tops of these mountains. We ain't making no more mountains. Although I guess we can because in Florida we have what we call trash mountains. So I guess we can build something up, but I doubt very seriously that the quality of it will be of the kind that we see with the mountain ranges of this great America.

Mr. Speaker, these bills are about protecting special interests that happen to be near and dear to some of my friends across the aisle. We are here voting on tired, discredited, and destructive policies that have absolutely no chance of becoming law. This is a failure of leadership by my Republican colleagues and, quite frankly, a waste of time. We should not be considering measures that will help destroy this planet for our children and grandchildren. We need strong environmental protections to ensure that we have clean air, clean water, and clean food.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3546, Mr. Levin's bill to extend emergency unemployment insurance for the long-term unemployed across this country for whom it has run out.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, it is a very sad thing that we continue to let people languish without fulfilling our responsibility to them with reference to unemployment insurance. It is a detriment to this Nation, and it serves us no useful purpose to continue delaying this particular effort.

While I do have the floor for a moment, I do wish to address legislation that I hope does come here with reference to our offering assistance to the people in Ukraine who should have an opportunity to make their own determination regarding their future and that we should stand with and, I am sure, are prepared to do so in an effort to assist them.

Mr. Speaker, I had the good fortune of being the president of the Parliamentary Assembly for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. During that time, I went to Ukraine on three different occasions, and during that time, I had the good fortune to be the lead monitor after the Orange Revolution; so it is not that I don't have a clear understanding of much that is going on. But what I hope my colleagues here will do is recognize that the Baltics, the Balkans, and the near abroad of Russia and Europe are in need of clarity with reference to matters and not simpleminded, noncomplex answers to very difficult problems that Ukraine is now faced with. It is a nationwide, continuing problem for us.

Mr. Speaker, apparently, we do have some other speaker en route, so I am required to reserve the balance of my time, as I anticipated I might be.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and will. I will close with what I said yesterday. When I was a child, Tennessee Ernie Ford sang a song about coal mining. It was that you load 16 tons and what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt.

I have been in Appalachia, as have many of my friends. I went to school in Tennessee, and often had an opportunity to travel to Kentucky and other areas during that period of time, and I have been in West Virginia. I have seen the conditions that many people work in.

I would only hope that they know that there are voices here who believe, just like throughout the rest of this Nation, in spite of the awesomeness of the work that they do in coal mining--and I might add as a footnote, there has been no deterioration in the job market with reference to coal mining--all that is being sought is that coal mining be done in a safe manner, and that the people living in those surroundings have the same kind of quality air, quality water, and quality food that is desperately needed by everybody.

We need look no further than West Virginia and accidents that have occurred there. Nobody wanted that to happen. Indeed, what we saw were corporate dodges of people who had taken advantage of smaller communities. That needs to stop.

I believe my colleagues here want to see to it that we have a situation where those who are working in these environments have an opportunity for safety and have an opportunity for clean air in their regions as well as water and food.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, and to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. President, we are all pleased today to welcome Pastor Trevor Barton to the Senate as he delivered the opening prayer.

Pastor Trevor, as everyone calls him, serves as lead pastor at Hawk Creek Church in London, KY. He is a laid-back guy, not big on fancy titles--the kind of pastor who would rather be preaching in blue jeans than a suit.

But under his leadership, Hawk Creek has exploded from a tiny fellowship to a congregation of well over 1,000 souls. I hear some parishioners drive all the way from Tennessee and Virginia just to listen to his sermons. Apparently, Pastor Trevor's parishioners aren't the only ones who have had a long commute to Hawk Creek. I hear the pastor sometimes drove in from almost an hour and a half away in Lexington. He did it so he could be close to his two young sons Shepherd and Greyson and to his wife Allison as she worked on a residency at UK Hospital.

Still, Pastor Trevor has developed important ties with the community in and around London. Hawk Creek does a lot of work with the Appalachian Children's Home. His church also has an important partnership with the local jail. Pastor Trevor's sermons are piped in live and loud every Sunday for the inmates to hear. One of my staffers told me she heard of Hawk Creek performing a baptism for about 70 inmates in a parking lot of that jail.

I think that says a lot about Hawk Creek Church, and it underscores something today's guest Chaplain once said: Whether ``you've messed up in the past, present, future, you are welcome'' in his church.

So I am proud to introduce Pastor Trevor today. We have been pleased to have him here as he dignified our proceedings with a prayer.

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court did the right thing by affirming his right to do so. I am delighted to welcome this fellow Kentuckian as he carries out this proud American tradition

Senate Debate

Mr. President, the American people sent us to Washington to debate serious issues. They expect us to take our jobs seriously, to develop effective solutions to the issues that matter to them. That is our charge. Throughout our Nation's history, the Senate has been the place where the weightiest issues have been discussed and debated and, in many cases, resolved.

It is where we wrestle with whether to go to war. It is where we pass landmark bipartisan legislation such as the Civil Rights Act, the GI bill, and the Welfare Reform Act. But over the past several years, and very vividly in the past several months, that proud history has started to erode.

Instead of a forum for debate and resolution of the most pressing domestic and international issues facing our Nation, it has become fodder for late-night TV. When the American people turn on C-SPAN these days they do not

often see a majority party driving serious debate on the issues of the day. They hear bizarre monologues about greased pigs and a couple of Kansans the majority leader seems to be thinking about all the time. They see a daily display of absurd political theater that has almost no relevance at all to their daily lives.

It is quite disgraceful. But it is no surprise either since the Democratic majority clearly ran out of ideas a long time ago. Their refusal to engage in serious debate is just another symptom of that. Senate Democrats are afraid to expose their party's empty playbook, so they play games instead. They fill the time with aimless diatribes against private citizens and legislative theatrics that are more about satisfying their liberal patrons than addressing the real concerns and anxieties of the American middle class.

It is all about revving up the far left for them, so they will show up in November and save the President's Senate majority. That is the hope, at least.

But the larger point is this: As Washington Democrats seek to preserve their hold on power, they are becoming increasingly untethered from the daily concerns of average Americans.

That is why you are seeing the Senate lose its sense of purpose. That is why you are not seeing any real debates. Instead of listening to the needs of the middle class, they dance to the tune of the left. That is why you see Senate Democrats pushing legislation that would cost up to 1 million jobs--at a time when the middle class is practically begging us to create jobs. That is why you see Senate Democrats basically boasting that their legislative agenda was drafted by campaign staffers--with no shame at all. And that is why you see Senate Democrats killing job creation bills the House sends us, without even so much as a vote.

No wonder the American people are so disgusted with Washington. Wouldn't you be? The majority's antics this week were particularly shameful. They shook their fists and declared that global warming was the most important issue of our age--that to stand in the way of their preferred solutions would be, at best, immoral. They shouted it from the rooftops and, presumably, sent emails to leftwing supporters to let them know just how serious they were and how Republicans were somehow holding things up.

What they did not tell their supporters was that the Democrats' own majority leader, who also spoke forcefully on the issue yesterday, has been blocking the Senate from voting on global warming for years. Why? Because he does not want his fellow Senate Democrats to have to take a tough vote and because he knows it would never pass a Chamber Democrats control anyway.

As I said, almost everything has become a show in the Senate now. The needs of the middle class are simply lost in the shuffle, and the institution itself is trivialized, it is diminished. The Senate used to be a place where we would discuss the pressing issues of the day. We would be able to do so again if the Senate floor were not being used as a campaign studio.

On Iran, Republicans have tried for months to debate and vote on additional sanctions to put an end to its nuclear program. We know a huge bipartisan majority would vote for increased sanctions if the majority leader would only allow the bill to come to the floor. But he will not. Just as he stopped us from voting to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline yesterday, resulting in headlines such as this one from the AP: ``Democratic leader blocks Senate vote on Keystone.''

``Democratic leader blocks Senate vote on Keystone.''

In fact, at a time when we should have been debating energy, the majority leader refused to allow a single Republican amendment on energy this week--not a one. As I have noted in recent days, the Republican-led House has offered Democrats 125 rollcall votes on their amendments since last July. Here in the Senate, the majority leader has allowed us nine--nine--rollcall votes on Republican amendments since July.

But let me put a finer point on that. Democrats in the House have received more than twice as many rollcall votes on energy-related amendments alone as we have received on all amendments since July. That is not the way this body was meant to function. It is disrespectful to the millions of American citizens represented on the Republican side of the aisle. They deserve a chance to be heard.

The way the Senate operates these days is a travesty--no real debate, no amendments, no respect for the millions of Americans represented by the minority party. It has become an arm of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. We owe the American people so much more than that.

It is time to focus on the middle class again--to let go of the obsession with the far left and the next election. It is time for the Senate to be the Senate again.

Honoring Our Armed Forces

Sergeant Jeremy R. Summers

Mr. President, I want to speak today about a brave young U.S. Army soldier from my home State of Kentucky who was lost in battle. SGT Jeremy R. Summers, of Brooksville, KY, perished on July 14, 2011, from wounds suffered when the enemy attacked his unit with small-arms fire in the Paktika Province of Afghanistan. He was 27 years old.

For his service in uniform, Sergeant Summers received many awards, medals, and decorations, including the Bronze Star Medal, the Purple Heart Medal, two Army Commendation Medals, the Army Achievement Medal, the Army Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal with Bronze Service Star, the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Korean Defense Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, three Overseas Service Ribbons, the NATO Medal, and the Combat Action Badge.

Kenneth Michael Summers, Jeremy's father, says this about his son:

He never hesitated to make a new soldier feel welcome into

the unit. There was one soldier who said he was so scared

because he was a newbie, but Jeremy stepped up and helped

him. [The other soldier] said for that, he was so thankful

and would never forget Jeremy. That was a common story when

soldiers told us about their experiences with Jeremy.

Jeremy was not only thoughtful and willing to help others, he was also a dedicated and committed servicemember, and I am sure it was due in part to his following the example that was set for him. Both Jeremy's father and mother, Laura Jo Summers, served in the Army. Jeremy, who graduated from Bracken County High School in Brooksville in 2002, enlisted in the Army in March of 2005 and served for 6 years.

At the time of his deployment to Afghanistan, he was serving as a U.S. Army forward scout observer and was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2nd Battalion, 506th Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division, based out of Fort Campbell, KY. Previously Jeremy had deployed to both Iraq and Korea.

Jeremy was a voracious reader and loved to watch scary movies. He was known to indulge in a practical joke or two to scare his friends. Jeremy was also a bright student in school, who earned a degree in computer engineering after his first tour of duty. Jeremy asked his parents for advice about reenlisting and decided to continue serving his country in uniform.

Sergeant Summers has followed not only the tradition of his parents but also the tradition of service of so many brave Kentucky men and women who have worn our country's uniform.

``He felt more comfortable in the military lifestyle than he did as a civilian,'' Jeremy's father recalls. ``I reckon it was only fitting . . . since he started life as a military brat and ended as an honorable soldier.''

Speaking for his family, Jeremy's father continues on to say this:

Jeremy was a good listener, a great friend, an awesome

brother and a terrific son. I wish all of you could have

known him like we did. He is still one of our hearts'

greatest treasures.

Mr. President, we are thinking of Sergeant Summers' family today after the loss of one of their hearts' greatest treasures. These include his parents, Kenneth Michael and Laura Jo Summers; his grandparents Joyce Wagoner and Mary Fowler, his siblings Austin Hunter and Jessica Elizabeth Summers, and many other beloved family members and friends.

My colleagues and I here in the Senate extend our greatest sympathies and

condolences to the Summers family for the loss of their son, brother, grandson, and friend Jeremy. We are proud of him for following the example set by his parents and volunteering to wear an American patriot's uniform.

We are deeply humbled and honored to be the beneficiaries of his life of service and his ultimate sacrifice. Without the bravery of men such as SGT Jeremy R. Summers, our Nation would not be free.

Reservation Of Leader Time

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in strong opposition to this legislation that would ignore the poisonous environmental impacts of mountaintop removal mining and would attempt to force States to adopt a discredited and vacated midnight Bush administration rule.

Mountaintop removal mining is a serious environmental health threat in Appalachia. Companies literally blast the tops off of mountains, scoop out the coal, and dump what is left over--what used to be the mountaintop and the mining residue--into the valley below. In the process, landscapes are scarred; wild habitat is destroyed; mountain streams are buried; fish are killed; and the long-suffering people living in the valleys suffer as they are left with degraded water.

It is not simply my opinion or the warnings of a few fringe environmental groups. This is what the science tells us. In a paper published in the journal Science a few years ago--a preeminent scientific journal--dozens of scientists laid this out very clearly. Building on a wealth of recent scientific data from a variety of researchers, they wrote:

Mountaintop mining in the valley fills revealed serious

environmental impacts that mitigation practices cannot

successfully address.

Now, the chairman today is talking about detailed procedural matters. He is wrong on that. The real point is the health of the people in the valleys. These scientists described:

When streams are buried, water emerges from the base of the

valley fills, containing a variety of solutes that are toxic

and damaging to biota, and that the recovery of biodiversity

in mining waste impacted streams has not been documented.

In other words, the recovery that they talk about does not exist in fact. It has not been shown to be possible.

Most frighteningly for the people who live with these impacts in their backyards, the scientists write:

Adult hospitalizations for chronic pulmonary disorders and

hypertension are elevated as a function of county-level coal

production . . .

They know it comes from this.

To continue the quote:

. . . as are the rates of mortality, lung cancer, chronic

heart, lung, and kidney disease.

Hospitalizations, hypertension, lung cancer, heart disease, kidney disease, increased flooding. Water with dangerous concentrations of toxic metals? Yes. That is what the science says. And the destruction of forests and streams.

These are the impacts of mountaintop removal mining that Congress should be addressing today. This is what we should be holding hearings on and writing legislation about.

We should be making the protection of people and the environment of the Appalachian region our top priority and making the mining companies act responsibly, not just cheaply. But the Republicans, Mr. Chairman, don't seem to want to talk about any of these impacts. They prefer to keep their heads in the sand and the gravel and the toxic waste when it comes to this issue.

Instead of the real impacts of mountaintop removal mining, they are focusing on imagined impacts of a rule that hasn't even been released yet. They imagine a war on coal, they imagine a political conspiracy to subvert the rule that the Bush administration put in place in the last minutes of their administration, instead of seeking to guarantee clean water for all Americans.

So they spent years trying to uncover that conspiracy, all the while forcing the Department of the Interior to spend tens of thousands of hours of staff time and millions of taxpayer dollars in order to comply with their commands--and now their subpoenas. And they have come up empty.

The inspector general for the Department of the Interior confirmed in December there were no political shenanigans. There was no misconduct. There was a poor choice of contractors, yes, and a debate among career staff about the proper way to move forward.

Could it have been handled better? Maybe. But there was no misconduct.

Meanwhile, the rule put in place by the Bush administration--the very rule that this bill would force States to adopt--was thrown out by a Federal court 2 weeks ago because the real misconduct was from the Bush administration, which decided that it didn't even need to consider the effects that destroying streams and rivers would have on threatened and endangered species. They did not do the consultation that is required under the law.

So this bill would overturn the court's decision, forcibly enact a rule that was improperly developed in the first place, and forbid the Obama administration from actually doing something to protect the streams from being buried and to protect the people who live there.

This bill would forbid them from actually doing something to protect forests, fish, wildlife, and humans. It would forbid them from actually doing something to protect the health of the people in these communities. This bill would create its own reality through an amendment added at the last minute that would deem the 2008 rule to have met the requirements of the Endangered Species Act that the court said they did not meet.

Now ``deem'' is a word that is not in common use. It certainly is a strange word the way it is used here in Congress. By ``deem,'' they mean they would declare in legislation that the Endangered Species Act was observed and that consultation had taken place, even though it wasn't and it hadn't. That is preposterous.

I wish we could do the same thing to environmental destruction caused by mountaintop removal mining and to the contaminated water and to the health impacts by simply saying, by legislation, that contamination never

happened. Those people were never affected. Their health never deteriorated. They didn't die. But we can't do that.

This bill does nothing to protect people from the destructive impacts of mountaintop removal mining. It is strongly opposed by a coalition of environmental groups like the Southern Environmental Law Center, the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters, the National Parks Conservation Association, and many more.

It is not just me standing here talking about it. It is not even just these scientists. It is many more.

Once again, I want everyone to understand that the real issue here today is not bureaucratic procedure. It is not even when a rule might have been issued and what went into making up that rule. What is at stake today is safe water for people, the health of the population, and an environment that can save us all.

I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking minority member of the Resources Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my friend from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), a champion for people's health, for wildlife and the environment, an outspoken critic of destructive mining practices, and the sponsor of the Appalachian Communities Health-- emphasis on health--Emergency Act, a bill on which I am pleased to join him as a cosponsor.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), my good friend.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), a Member of this body who has been a leader on countless environmental issues, my friend from Virginia who knows the harmful effects that mountaintop removal mining has had in his own State and throughout the Appalachian region.

I would gladly yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), my good friend and colleague from the Natural Resources Committee who has been a leader on standards and enforcement in mining and knows as well as anyone the time and energy that has been wasted in the committee's investigation of this stream protection rule, time that could have been spent protecting the environment and the people's health.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This is an actual photograph of actual water coming from an actual mountaintop removal site. I hope that the camera captures the color of the green hills that used to be there and the orange water that is there now. A stream this orange might be good for dyeing Easter eggs but not for drinking.

Now, earlier, I referred to the studies by scientists that associated hospitalizations with these activities. I referred to hospitalizations, hypertension, lung cancer, heart disease, kidney disease, increased flooding, loss of habitat, damage to wildlife. The other side, the majority, keeps wanting to talk about procedures, so let's talk about procedures for just a moment.

The record is clear. These are the words of the Federal District Court. The record is clear. The 2008 rule may affect or threaten endangered species or critical habitat. Further, the court goes on, the errors in this rule constitute a--in their words--serious deficiency and not merely a procedural defect.

Mountaintop removal mining is a serious environmental and health threat in Appalachia. That is what we should be talking about today, not about creating legislation that will deem reality to be different than it actually is, that will declare this stream clear flowing, that will declare these mountains green and verdant, that will declare that the Endangered Species Act was observed when it wasn't, that will declare that this rule will protect the environment and human health when it won't.

No amount of legislative deeming will make this reality change. What will make this reality change would be good, strong regulations with good, strong enforcement with an emphasis not on speed and cheapness but on people's health and an environment that can sustain us. That is what we should be talking about.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a most thoughtful and strong spokesperson on protecting our environment and people's health.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

I am prepared to close, as well.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The other side speaks about technicalities. Is it a technicality to fail to consider the negative impact on wildlife and the environment? Is it a technicality to ignore the harmful health effects for people living in communities near mining operations? Is it a technicality that allows us to sacrifice people's clean drinking water so that large mining companies can save a few dollars as they blow up a mountain?

No. These are not technicalities. In fact, the U.S. district court a few weeks ago made it clear these were not technicalities. I will repeat, in their words: the way this was put together is a serious deficiency and not merely a strictly procedural defect. That is why the rule was vacated by the court. We should not be imposing that now. We should be looking after the health of our environment and the health of the people we were sent here to represent.