Supporting Transparent Regulatory and Environmental Actions in Mining Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LAMBORN. 1644.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1644, the Supporting Transparent Regulatory and Environmental Actions in Mining Act, or the STREAM Act for short.

The STREAM Act has three goals. First, it establishes a requirement for scientific transparency and integrity in any rulemaking conducted by the Office of Surface Mining--we will be calling that OSM during our debate--under the authority of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. Some people call it SMCRA.

In the past, the Office of Surface Mining, or OSM, has sought to promulgate rules based on internal studies that are not made public. The first section of H.R. 1644, the STREAM Act, ensures transparency by requiring OSM to publish all scientific products it relies on in the rulemaking process.

For federally funded scientific products, the STREAM Act requires OSM to also publish raw data. If a scientific product is withheld from the public for more than 6 months, then the rule, environmental analysis, or economic assessment it supports will be withdrawn.

The second goal is to require an independent third-party assessment of the existing 1983 rule--which we are operating under right now--to determine if any deficiencies exist. The purpose of the independent study is to mitigate the polarization of this issue.

As such, the STREAM Act requires the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Interstate Mining Compact Commission, to contract with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of the 1983 stream buffer zone rule.

Mr. Chairman, this study will examine the effectiveness of the existing 1983 rule by the National Academy of Sciences and make recommendations for improving the rule, if necessary.

The Secretary is prohibited from issuing any regulations addressing stream buffer zones or stream protection until 1 year after the completion of the study and is required to take into consideration the findings or recommendations of the study.

This element of the STREAM Act is important because it ensures that the 24 States with primacy over surface mining will have input on the study. Unfortunately, beginning in 2011, OSM completely shut the States out of the rulemaking process, even though OSM had signed memoranda of understanding with 10 cooperating agency States in 2010 and one other State signing on as a commentator.

According to OSM, ``States permit and regulate 97 percent of the Nation's coal production. States and tribes also abate well over 90 percent of the abandoned mine lands problems.'' That is in the words of OSM.

The expertise for understanding the stream protection rule and other regulations promulgated under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act lies with the States, not with OSM. Yet, the States were completely cut out of the rulemaking process.

The third goal, finally, of H.R. 1644 is to inhibit OSM's regulatory overreach by curtailing regulatory action that would duplicate, enforce, or determine compliance with laws that are outside of OSM's jurisdiction.

An express concern related to the ongoing stream buffer zone rule rewrite is that OSM has sought to interpret and enforce the Clean Water Act, which is outside of its authority, by establishing a new set of water quality monitoring, evaluation standards, and procedures. In fact, the draft rule amends 475 existing rules promulgated under SMCRA, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.

OSM used the rulemaking process to rewrite the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 and went well outside of Congress' intent in writing that law.

Also--and this is amazingly shortsighted for our economic and energy future as a country--the draft rule released in July 2015 would freeze or sterilize more than 60 percent of the Nation's coal reserves.

If the draft rule, as written, is finalized, the administration will expose the U.S. taxpayer to takings litigation. This has happened before. An example would be the Whitney Benefits case in Wyoming that involved a regulatory taking of coal reserves that underlie alluvial material.

Passage of the STREAM Act will halt this destructive rulemaking process and provide an avenue for a collaborative approach to address deficiencies in the existing rule, if any, with the primacy States. It will save and protect the American taxpayer.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mooney) who has done an excellent job on the committee representing the folks of West Virginia.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LAMBORN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to recognize a Member in just a second. But in response to Mr. Yarmuth, I would just like to point out that the Office of Surface Mining has left States out of the discussions. States like Kentucky are not allowed to collaborate in this process, and that is unfortunate, because I think Kentucky and other States have something to contribute to this dialogue and this issue. So that is what the STREAM Act that we are going to vote on in a little bit would accomplish.

It brings the States back into the equation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson). He has been a stalwart defender of the coal industry and the future that coal has in the energy and economy of our country.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, in response to a statement that was just made, let me point out that Johns Hopkins researchers--maybe one of the leading medical institutions in our country--found that ``no increased risk of birth defects was observed from births from mountaintop mining counties after adjustment for or stratification by hospital of birth.''

So there are other issues going on that do affect the health in these areas. But you can't blame it on mountaintop mining, at least not according to Johns Hopkins.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis), who is a valuable member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LAMBORN. Will the gentlewoman yield?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LAMBORN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

So without the invasive species in the restored land, you could almost say, couldn't you, that the land is better than it was before?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

In response to my good friend and colleague Representative Lowenthal, I would like to say that just in today's Wall Street Journal, Arch Coal revealed that it has declared bankruptcy. They are one of the top coal producers in this country. I would say that the loss of jobs and this administration's war on coal is actually a staggering and frightening phenomenon, and that is why we need the STREAM Act.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close as soon as the opposing side has closed.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

In my closing remarks, I would like to highlight the findings of an economic impact analysis of the draft stream buffer zone rule, released in 2015, issued against the Obama administration regulation. The study was done by the ENVIRON International Corporation.

ENVIRON found that 64 percent of the Nation's coal reserves would be sterilized, or frozen, resulting in an annual loss in value that ranges between $14 billion to $29 billion.

The proposed rule hits longwall mining particularly hard, causing a decrease of 47 to 85 percent in recoverable longwall coal reserves. Longwall mining is considered the safest, most efficient, and most profitable type of underground mining.

Sterilizing so much of the Nation's coal reserves will have a significant impact on employment, ranging from a loss of 40,000 to about 77,000 direct jobs and 112,000 to 280,000 indirect jobs from those businesses and industries that provide goods and services to the mining sector.

These jobs are high-paying, family-wage jobs, with excellent benefits, including health care. The economic impact to the coal- producing States and counties will be staggering.

The STREAM Act instills sanity into the Office of Surface Mining's rulemaking process by requiring transparency in the scientific products used by OSM in any rulemaking that they have. It narrowly focuses the stream buffer zone rule to actual stream buffer zones and not 474 other regulations.

It also allows States with the expertise in regulating the Nation's coal mines to participate in the assessment of the effectiveness of the existing rule. Finally, it reins in OSM's overreach into areas outside of its statutory jurisdiction.

Mr. Chairman, there are two great ironies in this whole war on coal by the administration. Actually, it is a war on the American people. It is a war on working families because it not only costs high-paying jobs, but it drives up the cost of energy. When you drive up the cost of energy, that takes money out of people's pockets, and they have less money left over to take care of their families and to provide for their futures.

If the war on coal by this administration were successful, not only would you have those negative impacts, but many of the environmentalists would just create another war.

There is already one major group that says, ``Oh, we don't even like natural gas,'' which is being touted as the replacement for coal. They don't even like that.

There will be some other reason to which they will find objection with regard to whatever takes coal's place, would that day ever come.

When you run the numbers, the environmental impact of getting rid of coal completely for electrical generation would have a negligible impact on any future impact on the global climate.

Let's pass the STREAM Act as it protects jobs, it protects rural communities, and it protects the American taxpayer. I ask that my colleagues support this important piece of legislation and vote for its final passage.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I believe that this amendment is really technical in nature. It does two things.

First, we ensure that the legislation does not infringe on copyright laws.

According to the largest private publishers of scientific research, government-funded studies will be made publicly available ``where the government has funded the publication of a private sector, peer- reviewed article or where the author of the article is a government employee . . . we do not dispute that any such article couldn't be made publicly available.''

We are addressing that concern that was raised during the markup of this bill.

Second, we identified a technical error in a U.S. Code citation and corrected it.

I ask for a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, my heart goes out to my friend and colleague from Flint, Michigan. I share in the difficulties that they are suffering now in that city because of the water supply. I know that his intention is to do everything he can--and I appreciate his work--to help the people of his district, especially when it comes to water supply. I appreciate that.

I do have to point out that the issue that was raised there is not a mining issue. It is from other sources. It is pollution from pulp and paper mills, and it is not a mining issue.

Getting back to this amendment, I do have to point out that already under the law, permitted mines must already adhere to safe drinking water standards and are very heavily regulated by the EPA. The problem with the OSM, Office of Surface Mining, is that they are taking over-- it is bureaucratic mission creep--they are taking over some of the EPA functions. Among other good things that the STREAM Act does is it prevents OSM from going down that road, and it leaves clean water issues under the jurisdiction of the EPA.

So we just need to make sure that the government agencies stick to what they know best. The STREAM Act does that. Water quality is really not an issue when it comes to nonmine issues.

I would ask for opposition to this bill.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, although this is a very well-intended amendment, the purpose of the section of the bill affected by this amendment is already to ensure that good science is used in the development of the rules by making the scientific products on which the rule is based publicly available for review and already provides for an emergency exemption if the delay in the publication of a rule during this public review will pose ``an imminent and severe threat to human life.'' An imminent and severe threat to human life, that is already addressed in the text of the bill. Mr. Chairman, I believe that this is unnecessary.

We also have protection under the existing Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, SMCRA. It is to ``establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations.''

The law and the proposed bill that is before us today already are designed to help protect human health and the environment. So although this is a well-intended amendment, it is unnecessary, given this background.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I urge us to reject this motion. It is only going to delay passage of this excellent piece of legislation. We just rejected a very similar amendment moments ago, and that was a substantive amendment. This is a procedural--not even a substantive-- amendment.

The bill does three great things, and that is why we need to pass the bill. It promotes transparency and scientific integrity. It requires an independent third-party review of the proposed OSM, Office of Surface Mining Bureau, rule. And it prevents OSM from regulatory overreach. So for those three important reasons, we should pass this bill.

When it comes to health in particular, let me read a sentence from the text of the bill: ``This subsection shall not apply if a delay in the publication of a rule will pose an imminent and severe threat to human life.''

So we do already address health. It is covered in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a rejection of the motion to recommit and the passage of H.R. 1644.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source