Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of the Interior known as the Stream Protection Rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Washington, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate the rule for consideration of a joint resolution disapproving of a Department of the Interior regulation known as the stream protection rule.

Through this action, my Republican colleagues are now attempting to repeal a thoughtful and thoroughly vetted regulation that reflects current science, technology, and mining practices in order to better protect people and the environment from the negative impacts of mountaintop removal mining. This regulation took 7 years to develop and updates a 30-year-old coal mining regulation.

This regulation is not, as we have seen coming out of the administration of late, some fly-by-night executive order, but rather a serious attempt by serious people to make us a healthier and more environmentally conscious nation.

However, what we see here today is business as usual for the Republican majority--turning a blind eye to science in order to help wealthy polluters at the expense of the public's health and the environment. Just because my friends' unending attempts to normalize such misguided governance have become almost numbing in their effect does not make such attempts any less appalling to those of us who believe in the scientific method and a clean and safe environment.

Indeed, the paucity of care that we see here today in ridding the books of a regulation that hardworking and good people took 7 years to write with, mind you, input from all stakeholders, is starting to look like a variation of a theme when we consider the paucity of care the Republicans in the White House have exhibited over the past 10 days.

As everyone knows, last Friday, President Trump issued an executive order banning Muslims from certain countries from entering the United States and callously shutting down the refugee program. What ensued, and I predict will continue to ensue as we speak here today, was nothing short of chaos. Scores and scores of people were detained for hours, including green card holders, children, the elderly, and even Iraqi translators who had helped the United States during the insurgency.

Equally as horrifying as this Muslim ban that is the antithesis of everything we value as Americans is the ineptitude in which such a sweeping policy was implemented. Relevant agencies were not even consulted. In fact, Homeland Security Secretary Kelly, found out about the executive order on the phone while on a Coast Guard plane heading back to Washington. Secretary Mattis was also left off the list of those consulted. Had he been on it, he would have almost certainly expressed the sentiment he expressed during the campaign, mainly that the Muslim ban would cause great damage and send shock waves through the international community.

Like Ms. Eshoo, who spoke earlier, I am a veteran of the Intelligence Committee as well. We serve there together. I can assure you our experience leads us to know--and anyone that is on the Intelligence Committee knows now--that what we are about to experience is a handout to our enemies and will cause additional shock waves in the international community.

The result of this amateur hour rollout was a Customs and Border Patrol agency that wasn't sure how to even execute the order. From management on down, no one knew what was going on while scores of people were riddled with fear that their realization of a free and fair life here in the United States was lost forever. People with visas and green cards were held for hours. Will someone please tell me what it means to issue a visa to persons if they cannot utilize the visa?

People were denied access to a lawyer even after a Federal Court order stayed the executive action.

Here is a small sampling of the immediate impact of this Muslim ban: A 5-year-old boy, a U.S. citizen, was detained for several hours. 5 years old--a truer threat to our national security we have never faced. An 88-year-old man and his 83-year-old wife, both wheelchair bound and both possessing green cards, were detained for hours. He is legally blind, and she recently suffered a stroke--detained for hours.

A Ph.D. student at Stony Brook University, who has lived in the United States for 12 years, was detained for more than 24 hours. The mother of an Active Duty United States servicemember was detained for more than 30 hours.

Tell me, what danger do these people pose? What security objective is achieved by detaining them?

I argue none.

I have to agree with Senator Rob Portman when he said what was so plainly obvious to see: ``This was an extreme vetting program that wasn't properly vetted.''

As thousands arrived at airports across the country to protest the President's executive order and hundreds of lawyers showed up to volunteer their time to write habeas petitions for those so clearly wrongfully detained, President Trump, living in a world all his own, tweeted the following: ``All is going well with very few problems.''

All is not going well, Mr. President, and there are many problems.

Then he defended the hastily implemented order saying that: ``If the ban were announced with a one week notice, the `bad' would rush into our country during that week. A lot of bad `dudes' out there!''

This is a stunningly ignorant and offensive statement that reveals to the entire world a person with no grasp of even what the refugee program is or how the visa process works.

Immediately preceding this tweet, the President advised everyone to: ``Study the world!''

I encourage him to take his own advice.

Beyond the human toll this foolish and callous policy has inflicted on scores of innocent people, the executive order actually undermines our efforts to defeat terrorism--jeopardizing the very safety the order purports to provide. The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, headed by John McCain, along with Senator Lindsey Graham, underscored this irony, and I quote their joint statement: ``We fear this executive order

will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism,'' noting further that President Trump's executive order ``may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security.''

So I find it interesting now that the majority of my Republican colleagues in the House, even the ones that voiced opposition to a Muslim ban during the campaign when then-President-elect Trump first proposed it, including our Speaker of the House, are now deafeningly silent.

Instead, Republicans are using their time today not to respond to this chaos-inducing executive order that so clearly violates core American values, but rather to repeal a rule that was actually properly vetted--vetted for 7 years, using the best science and technology available, and following input from the public and leaders in the industry. I caution my friends, the events of today and how you respond to them will be written in the history books tomorrow.

A question emerges from the fog that is the Trump administration's full frontal attack on our Constitution: What is more important, appeasing a man who is just as likely to tweet insults at you as he is to rush out ill-conceived and horrid executive orders, or protecting our Constitution and the ideals of this great Nation?

The ideals and dedication to the rule of law that have inspired the poor, the tired, and the huddled masses to seek a better and freer life here in the United States. It didn't begin with Muslims. It began with the Founders of this country, and it was followed by countless others, from Irish, Italians, Polish, Hungarians, Vietnamese, and Chinese, all over this world coming to this country to seek the kind of life that many of our ancestors sought over the course of time and some of our ancestors had no choice but to undertake.

The time to act in the name of short-term political expediency is over. It is time to stand up and do what is right. It is time to protect our Constitution. It is time to defend the idea that we can indeed form a more perfect Union. But we cannot do that with the kind of division that is being sold by this administration, and we cannot do that by spending what appears to be the month of February disapproving executive orders that the previous President issued. It seems to me somehow or another in that fog is going to be the kind of confusion and chaos that we just witnessed this weekend.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, both of my colleagues on the other side referred to the rule they seek to disapprove as a midnight rule. Well, I don't know how you take 7 years of midnights that it took to develop this rule and call it a midnight rule--7 years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), my very good friend and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

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

Mr. Speaker, President Trump's xenophobic executive order banning Syrian refugees and suspending emigration from certain countries is driven by fear. It demonstrates a callous indifference to human suffering; it ignores the Constitution; and it will not only tarnish our image abroad, but harm our national security. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up my good friend Representative Lofgren's bill to overturn and defund this dangerous executive order.

Let me be abundantly clear for people watching this debate. The question we are about to decide is: Should we even have a vote on undoing Trump's order? A ``no'' vote on the previous question will give us the opportunity to overturn this order. A ``yes'' vote means that the House will do nothing to stop Trump's executive action.

The American people watching this debate should take notice to see how their Representatives vote on this important motion, and they should hold their elected officials accountable. Did your Member of Congress turn a blind eye to Trump's unconstitutional policy by voting ``yes,'' or did your Representative reject this attack on our core American values and vote ``no?''

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), my good friend, to discuss this proposal.

Mr. Speaker, would the Chair be so kind as to tell me how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished minority leader, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters) for debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas).

Now we are back to unanimous consent. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Brownley) for a unanimous consent request.

Yes, she did.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Am I not permitted to yield a limited amount of time to Members for debate?

In that instance I did. My question and my parliamentary inquiry continuing, Mr. Speaker, is am I permitted to yield a limited amount of time to each Member for the purpose of debate?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Carbajal).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip and my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 10 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Demings), my home girl, for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands (Mr. Sablan) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my good friend that I serve on the Rules Committee with, for debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brendan F. Boyle) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, with the Members who have come here and asked for unanimous consent and with its being denied by virtue of the gentleman from Washington's not agreeing to the unanimous consent and with the notion in mind that the period for debate is what is to be recognized, my

question is: Do the people who did come here and seek unanimous consent--although it was not accepted--have the opportunity to insert a statement in the Record that signifies their intentions with reference to the matter at hand?

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I inform the gentleman from Washington that I have no further requests for time and I am prepared to close.

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

The majority leader just got through saying all of the things they are getting ready to do to drain the swamp. My feeling about what is happening--and I am speaking for myself--is they may very well drain the swamp, but if you take out the alligators and you put in crocodiles and you put in snakes, you have just made the swamp that much more dangerous to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, the cavalier nature by which my friends across the aisle approach the awesome responsibility of governing is as disturbing as it is disappointing. They all own this now. They are in charge. Although I may understand the emotive desire to turn things on their head, they all would be wise to come to the realization sooner rather than later that their actions affect real people. All they have to do is just see what transpired this past weekend.

The children, the elderly, the students who are waiting in airports across our country who are wishing to flee their oppressors or who are simply returning to their lives here at home are real people. They heard them being identified in the denied unanimous consent requests of my colleagues who came forward here. The children, the elderly, and all of the other folks who have to live in environments that are less clean and that are more likely to make them sick because of their flippant approach here today are real people. To be taken seriously, they must act seriously. Within that context, I would have to surmise that they all would be judged and found wanting.

To truly convey the devastating consequences of what has happened these past few days, I could quote from one of the Founding Fathers about the ideal of freedom from religious persecution; or I could recite for them the inscription on the Statue of Liberty, which has guided and inspired generations of immigrants and refugees as they have come here to seek better lives for themselves and their families; or I could quote from Luke 10:25 wherein Jesus tells the parable of the Good Samaritan. I will not.

Instead, I will leave them with the words of Dr. Amir Heydari, a bariatric surgeon and United States citizen who has lived in the United States for nearly 40 years and who was detained for questioning this past weekend:

``I wanted to live somewhere that celebrated freedom--freedom of speech, freedom of religion, all of these kinds of things. That's what everyone in the world thinks about the USA, and unfortunately, when these types of actions are taken, the image is not the same anymore.''

I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying measure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 70 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman and my good friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

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. 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the good gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mooney).

Mr. Speaker, I do not yield.

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. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader of the Republican Conference.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time; so, yes, I am prepared to close.

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

I would just like to take a minute to remind the American people and my friends across the aisle that we are here today, as the minority leader said, to begin the process of unwinding the burdensome regulations that are truly stifling job creation and hurting our friends and our families in each and every one of our neighborhoods across the country.

Many from the other side have tried to distract with unrelated issues. I just want to be clear that the rule today does not address immigration in any way and that none of their requests went through the regular and bipartisan process to clear such requests.

So let's focus on why we are here. We are here because we must take a firm stand against the overly burdensome and restrictive regulations that have been issued in the waning days of the previous administration. By passing this CRA, we can rescind the final stream protection rule, which the OSM produced without input from the States-- responsible for enforcing mining regulations--and which disregards

existing regulations on both the State and the Federal levels that have proven to be effective.

This regulation will have devastating effects on mining communities across the country and will lead to significant job losses and higher electricity costs--all while weakening U.S. energy security for decades. The stream protection rule will drastically reduce our access to coal and our ability to develop new clean coal technologies, which will result in reduced domestic energy protection and in tens of thousands of lost jobs in coal-producing States as well as in industries across the country that are reliant on this energy. If we fail to pass the underlying bill, the rule's devastating impacts will be felt far and wide in our great land as approximately 78,000 mining jobs will be lost, which is in addition to the tens of thousands of mining jobs that have already been lost in the last 8 years.

Mr. Speaker, coal is essential to the U.S. economy. It provides affordable energy that accounts for almost 40 percent of the Nation's electricity supply--almost 20 percent in the gentleman's home State of Florida. Because of its abundance, reliability, and affordability, electricity generated from coal is generally 30 percent cheaper than other alternative energy sources. Additionally, at current consumption rates, our country has more than 250 years of remaining coal reserves, ensuring that we will have energy security here at home for generations to come.

Passing H.J. Res. 38 will protect American jobs and families from yet another burdensome regulation that has failed to follow the basic tenets of transparency, inclusivity, and cooperation with stakeholders, cooperating States, and, most importantly, the American people.

Now is the time for Congress to overturn this unparalleled executive overreach and implement policies that protect communities that have been long forgotten by the former administration. The CRA was designed for this exact purpose, and we now have a unique opportunity to pass this legislation through both Chambers and see it signed into law.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good, straightforward rule, allowing for the consideration of an important resolution that will ensure that mining communities and hardworking families are not pressed by another crippling Federal regulation. I believe this rule and the underlying legislation are strong measures that are important to our country's future. I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 70 and the underlying joint resolution.

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

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

I rise in strong opposition to this resolution, which would put coal company profits ahead of clean water and public health. The stream protection rule has been in development for 7 years and puts in place modest, commonsense protections for people who live near coal mines.

This isn't just a rule to protect streams. This is a rule to protect people's health, to protect people's homes, and to protect the clean water that they rely on. These folks felt strongly enough about this rule to submit public comments.

The rule is designed to protect people like Donetta from West Virginia, who nearly lost her life when chemicals from coal fields found their way into her water supply and interacted with her medication in such a way that it nearly destroyed her liver.

The rule is designed to protect people like John from Alabama, who reports lakes that have turned gray and streams that have turned orange.

This rule is designed to protect people like David from Tennessee, who watched a creek near his grandmother's home become lifeless due to strip mining nearby.

This rule is designed to protect people like Josh from North Carolina, who can no longer fish in the streams near a family home and wants coal companies to be held accountable for the damage that they did.

This rule is designed to protect people like Jonita from Kentucky, a coal miner's daughter whose water supply is tainted with heavy metal and other toxins from coal sludge. She wrote: ``Coal put the food on my table. It also put the poison in my water. Reasonable trade-off?''

I don't believe that Jonita or anyone else should have to make that trade-off. No one's water supply should be sacrificed in the name of higher bonuses for coal company CEOs. Those coal executives have made it their overriding goal to kill this regulation; and after spending nearly $50 million on political campaign contributions over the past 6 years, they now have a Congress and a President to do it.

So for the first time in 16 years and just the second time ever, Republicans are going back to Newt Gingrich's playbook and trying to successfully use the Congressional Review Act simply because the coal industry feels like it shouldn't be held accountable.

But as we know, this is only the first of five regulations that we will be repealing just this week. Later today, they are going to get rid of the rule

that requires increased transparency on the part of oil, gas, and the mining industry. Later this week, we will be fighting for the right of oil and gas companies to pollute the air with methane.

This is the Republican agenda in the age of Trump; an attack on clean water, an attack on clean air, an attack on transparency, and an attack on human health. If you are a CEO or a wealthy Republican donor, this is great news; and you will love the next couple of years. But if you are an ordinary American that depends on their government to hold companies accountable through tough but fair enforcement of regulations, you should be extremely worried.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal), the ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources' Subcommittee on Energy and Minerals Resources.

Mr. Speaker, it should be noted for the record that the Republican majority conducted a 4-year investigation into the development of this rule, holding 12 hearings, issuing two subpoenas, collecting 25 hours of audio recordings and 13,500 pages of documents, but were unable to uncover any political interference or misconduct in the development of this rule.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).

Mr. Speaker, if there is a war on coal, it is being led by the natural gas industry who produces a cheaper product at a lower cost. And if there is any trouble that coal is in, it is directly attributed to the free market and that competition.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. McEachin), the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

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

I would like to read a few lines from letters of opposition to this resolution. The first comes from a coalition of 75 national and local environmental groups who are strongly opposed to this bill.

They write: ``This long awaited rule provides local communities with information they desperately need about water pollution caused by nearby coal mining operations, and includes several important protections for clean water and the health of communities surrounding coal mining operations. Any attack on the safeguards in the Stream Protection Rule is an attack on clean water and should be opposed.''

Wildlife and sportsman groups are also opposed.

The National Wildlife Federation writes: ``The Stream Protection Rule is an important water quality rule for our nation. It seeks to empower State regulatory authorities to ensure coal mining and reclamation best practices, taking into account their unique regional distinctions and impacts to local communities and wildlife.

``. . . any efforts to undermine the safeguards afforded by the finalized Stream Protection Rule, a rule with years of stakeholder outreach and engagement, would be an attack on clean water and should be opposed.''

Travel Unlimited says: ``The rule is a worthy, sensible effort to reduce the huge impacts of mountaintop removal coal mining . . . on our Appalachian streams and rivers.''

And it goes on and on. They all go on to point out the specific impact of mountaintop removal mining on fishing and wildlife and sportsmen.

``Mountaintop removal mining practices create a survival risk for brook trout and other wild trout populations, and impede efforts to restore brook trout in already degraded watersheds.''

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

The use of the Congressional Review Act has been categorized as reckless and extreme. The CRA was going to cause significant and lasting harm.

If successful, two things are going to happen: the regulation is void and the agency is prohibited from issuing another similar rule ever again.

I mention that because this is about health. It is about the health of the people living around those mining operations and it is about mountaintop removal and the documented analysis

that proves that it is a danger to health. It contaminates water and it is destructive to the environment.

It is curious that we had 13 hearings--I stand corrected--and an investigation that went on in perpetuity, it seemed like. Yet, once the rule was finalized and published in 2015, we never had another hearing on the item again, which begs the question: If the whole point was to delay and prevent this rule from ever taking effect and, more importantly, make it susceptible to the Congressional Review Act, mission accomplished for the majority.

But the long-term consequences of using the CRA on a rule that is designed to protect people's health, on a rule that is designed to make coal companies be transparent and disclose to the public, on a rule that every scientific analysis and the science is clear that this rule was indeed there to protect both people and communities, I think that is the permanent harm being done by this action today--denying the people in those communities to return to past practices that created the problem that we are dealing with and that this rule attempted to address that created that problem.

Now we return to those times where unregulated mountaintop removal causes the destruction to both human beings and the environment that we see as a legacy. I think it is not only disrespectful to the people of those regions, but it, again, puts their health and the well-being of both the environment and humanity in that area at major risk. It is not only reckless and extreme to use the CRA, it is also dangerous.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, our opposition to this action being proposed by the Republicans to eliminate the stream protection rule is, indeed, an action that goes against fundamental science, goes against the public health of the American people in those communities, and, overall, takes the Congressional Review Act and uses it as a bludgeon to keep generations and generations in those areas at risk in their health, their water, and the general environment in the area.

The issue of cost is an issue that comes up. The loss of jobs has been the creation of competition, not because of any proposed rule.

Second of all, when we were dealing with the horrors of black lung, we were dealing with issues of mine safety for coal miners and the struggles that their unions had to go through to get mine safety and healthcare protection for their workers.

At the time, I am sure, those were considered cost factors and why not do it. The cost factor here is about human life and it is about protection of water. I would suggest that that should be the priority of this Congress and not emboldening or enriching the mine operators and their profit line.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), my friend.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 70, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 38) disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of the Interior known as the Stream Protection Rule, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.J. Res. 38.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

We are starting an historic week in the House, something that was replicated almost two decades ago, but we are doing it again and are using the Congressional Review Act to look at actual rules and regulations. What we are doing is the right thing.

In 1996, when this act was first passed, President Clinton, after signing it, said that this act would give congressional accountability for regulations. Even Harry Reid said that this act would be reclaiming for Congress some of its policymaking authority, and Sander Levin of Michigan, at the time, also said that now we are in a position to do something ourselves. If a rule goes too far afield from the intent of Congress in its passing the statute in the first place, we can stop it. That is exactly what we are attempting to do, and this is one of the first of those activities we will be doing this week.

The Congressional Review Act actually has three purposes in mind. They said, if a rule has excessive costs, if a rule goes beyond the particular agency's statutory authority, and if a rule is duplicative or unnecessary, it should be reviewed by Congress and rescinded. That is exactly what we are going to do because this rule, commonly called the stream protection rule, does all three of those criteria.

What I want to do is talk about this rule that was passed at the last minute by the former administration--it actually went into effect on the very last day of the administration--and say that it violates all of those three elements. The act itself--the rule itself--was done in secret. They had their own opaque study that they did without letting anyone know what the data was. We asked for it repeatedly, but the agency refused to tell us. Even in 2015, Congress passed a law in the Appropriations Act that mandated they tell us the data, the information. They simply ignored that law. They have refused to work with Congress in any particular way.

Actually, it violates law. If this rule goes forward, it violates the NEPA law. If gone into implementation, it would violate the Endangered Species Act.

It violates a memo of understanding the Federal Government had with 10 States at the time. In fact, there are 14 States suing over this rule and regulation. We have the letters of support from 14 State attorneys general in support of what we are attempting to do here.

If put into effect, it clearly violates the Clean Water Act by its effort to redefine hydraulic balance, which this agency does not have the authority to do. It is given to other elements.

It also puts us at risk of litigation on a takings issue. There is precedent for that. It could happen again, all because of this ill- defined and unnecessary rule and regulation.

If we roll it back, there is still protection. There will always still be protection. In a Department of the Interior study, they clearly said that 93 percent of all the impact has already been taken care of and does not actually exist. It would be easy for us to do and it would put us back to a rule established in 1983 that is effective in protecting these areas. Ninety three percent of all streams have no impact by this issue whatsoever.

It also clearly says, under the report when this rule was being done, that the States that are legally supposed to be coordinated and be a part of the process were shut out of the process. It is one of the reasons why they are still suing, which means the memo of understanding signed by those States was ignored by the agency in coming up with this rule. The States that regulate 97 percent of the Nation's coal production, States and tribes that abate well over 90 percent of the abandoned mine problems--they have it in line, they have it ready, they are ready to move forward with it--they were simply shut out of the process. It is a poor process.

There was a former icon of this body, a great Member who once allegedly said: If I let you make the policy and you let me make the procedure, I will screw you over every time.

This is poor procedure that has produced a poor rule, which will result in poor policy. At best, this rule is redundant. It is clearly unnecessary, and it does have the potential of hurting people nefariously when it does not need to.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson) to explain this joint resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins), someone who has forgotten more about coal than I will ever know.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to quibble over details, but we actually held 13 hearings and passed four bills over the last three Congresses about this particular rule and found countless problems with it. That is why we are here today.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley), who knows the real impact on his constituents that this rule will have.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), who chaired most of our 13 hearings on this issue, and who represents a State that is suing because they were ignored in this rule, where they should have had their rights under the Clean Water Act, which is part of the problem we have here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), part of our committee who has heard the 13 hearings, understands this issue, and was part of the House when we voted four different times to be opposed to this particular rule.

Mr. Speaker, I now have the pleasure of recognizing people who are not on our committee but still know how silly this rule actually is.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost.)

Mr. Speaker, nice to know that 2:30 in the afternoon is the dead of night.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Renacci).

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), another State that was promised, in the Clean Water Act, to have authority which was taken away by this simple rule.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer), a new Member of Congress, who realizes that this rule is long on regulations and short on real new protections for people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), one of the other members of our committee who has served for a long time and has heard many of these arguments before.

Mr. Speaker, the opposition to this particular bill goes from coast to coast. We just heard from California. Now we will go back to the East Coast.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), who clearly understands the situation that this rule has presented.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

The stream protection rule has got to be the poster child for the Congressional Review Act's action. There are 400 changes to the bill. There are 400 changes in over 1,600 pages of regulations, and there is no new, real protection above and beyond what we were using since the Reagan administration.

But it does outline benefits and potential problems for 70,000 people directly with their jobs, for 300,000 people whose jobs are threatened in a ripple effect, and, unfortunately, for everyone else. Every time you turn a light on, your costs will be exacerbated because of this particular rule.

This rule affects the most vulnerable of our population and it hurts them. It is time for us to realize that it is time to stop making rules and regulations for an ideological approach, and, instead, new rules and regulations that help people, not hurt people, as this particular one does.

That is why this House, on four different occasions over the last three congresses, has voted against this particular proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).

Mr. Speaker, the President's executive order of Friday violates the law, it violates the Constitution, and it violates good sense.

How does it violate the law? Section 202(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act specifically prohibits nationality-based discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas and other visas. That is what this order did.

Now, the law is clear that individuals who pose a threat to the United States can--and I should add, should be--barred from the United States; but you can't just legally make a blanket objection based on nationality and, I would add, based on religion. That is what the President's order does. It suspends refugee admission completely for months.

Who are these refugees? Most of the refugees admitted last year were from Burma and the Congo, not from Syria. They are people who have been vetted for years, many of whom are fleeing for their lives and will continue to live in fear.

It does something else. It suspends admission even of legal permanent residents from seven countries, violating their rights to equal protection and to due process.

People want to keep the country safe--we all do; of course, I do--but how does this order keep us safe? Let me just give an example.

General Talib al-Kenani from Iraq commands the elite American-trained counterterrorism forces that have been leading the fight against ISIS for 2 years. His family relocated to the U.S. for safety. He can't visit them anymore. He said this:

I have been fighting terrorism for 13 years and winning.

Now my kids are asking: Am I a terrorist? I am a four-star

general, and I am banned from entering the United States.

I ask you: How does this advance our safety by barring our allies who are fighting ISIS? It doesn't.

I have got to correct something else. People have said that President Obama had an order in 2011 barring immigrants from Iraq. That is false. We did additional vetting in 2011 because we wanted to make sure that anyone coming in was thoroughly examined. That slowed things down a little bit because there were new procedures, but there was never a halt to admission from those who are our allies in Iraq, those fighting ISIS with us.

I would just like to say that, in addition to violating the law, causing hardship for families trying to visit people in the hospital, permanent residents who are engineers trying to come back to run their companies in Silicon Valley, this order is a gift to ISIS. They are already using it to recruit enemies of our country by saying: America is fighting Islam. As George Bush said when he was President, our argument, our fight is not with Islam. Our fight is with terrorism.

To issue this order with the President's rhetoric saying that we are going to make a distinction on who is admitted to the United States based on their religion is not only illegal, it is contrary to American values and it is contrary to our safety.

So I hope that, instead of doing this antienvironment bill today, we will instead take up H.R. 724. This is a bill that would defund and rescind President Trump's ill-advised order from Friday.

Let me just say this. I would like to issue a formal invitation to every Republican Member of this House to join

me as a cosponsor of this bill. I will be sending out a formal note to each one later today, but you are on notice to please join us.

We as American legislators need to make sure that the rule of law is upheld. Many of our constituents are very uncertain about whether the rule of law is going to survive this Presidency. Help give them faith and hope by cosponsoring this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would plead for unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 724 to overturn President Trump's refugee ban so that individuals like Hameed Khalid Darweesh, who helped the U.S. military in Iraq and who has a special immigrant visa, won't be detained at JFK Airport for 19 hours.