Providing for Consideration of H.R. Supporting Transparent Regulatory and Environmental Actions in Mining Act; Providing for Consideration of S.J. Res. Providing for Congressional Disapproval of A Rule Submitted By the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency; Providing for Consideration of H.R. Iran Terror Finance Transparency Act; and Providing for Proceedings During the Period From January Through January 2016

Floor Speech

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to this rule and the underlying legislation. The rule provides for consideration of three pieces of legislation, and two of these bills are under a completely closed process. In fact, these are the 49th and 50th closed rules in this Congress.

Last year was the most closed session in the history of our country, and I think this year will probably beat last year. I don't think that is anything to be proud of.

This is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world, but the problem is, we don't deliberate very much anymore. We don't pass legislation. Instead, we pass sound bites, and that is what we are doing here today.

This Chamber has become an echo chamber, if you will, for the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee and its priorities, and the people's business gets tossed to the side.

When Speaker Ryan took the gavel, he promised openness and a return to serious legislating. And my colleagues on the Rules Committee, we give them many opportunities to be more generous with granting more opportunities for Members of both sides to be able to offer amendments. And every time we do that, they vote ``no.'' And every time we bring up an open rule, they vote ``no.''

Here we are, with two more bills that will be debated under a completely closed process this week. Things have to change here, and I hope my colleagues in the leadership on the other side will reflect on what the purpose of all of us being here is supposed to be.

I would say it is about trying to find ways to come together and to pass things that will help improve the quality of life for all the people of this country, as well as to ensure our security in this dangerous world.

Mr. Speaker, let me say a few words about H.R. 3662, the Iran Terror Finance Transparency Act. My Republican friends would have us believe that this bill is a serious effort to increase congressional oversight of sanctions relief under the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, commonly known as the Iran deal.

I wish that were true, Mr. Speaker. Such a bill could bring together a substantial number of Members from both parties. I would be even more confident about such a bill if it were crafted with input from the administration about how Congress could be most helpful and effective in monitoring the Iran nuclear deal.

Regrettably, what is coming before the House is another ultra- partisan bill that would shut down the ability of the United States to carry out its own obligations under the Iran deal.

Rather than the world closely monitoring Iran's compliance, this bill would make the United States a target of condemnation for failing to fulfill its commitments. In fact, it would be the United States that is the nation in noncompliance with the Iran nuclear deal.

Now, many of my colleagues who are critics of the Iran nuclear deal have already signaled that they cannot support this bill. House Republicans made no attempt whatsoever to make this bill a bipartisan bill. They made no attempt to draft a bill that might actually be signed by the President and worth the American taxpayers' time. This is political theater at its worst, plain and simple.

This latest House Republican bill is even more dangerous because it plays politics with our national security.

No one here wants to see Iran freed from its commitment not to develop a nuclear weapon, but that is exactly what this bill would do if it ever became law. It would make sure that the United States could not fulfill its part of the bargain, thus killing the nuclear agreement, and Iran would once again be free to pursue building nuclear weapons. That is insane.

How can my Republican friends possibly think that this is a good idea?

I believe that there are Members of Congress in both parties who want to work together with the administration in a bipartisan manner to build on the progress that they have made to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

I do believe there are Democrats and Republicans in Congress who genuinely want to strengthen the ability of the U.S. and the international community to respond effectively to Iran's recent testing of ballistic missiles, hold Iran accountable for their support of militant and terrorist organizations in the Middle East, and secure the freedom of Americans currently imprisoned in Iran.

I also believe that achieving these goals may not require legislation, but strong bipartisan actions that increase U.S. leverage with our international partners and with Iran.

But playing dangerous political games with our national security by bringing legislation like this to the floor, legislation that would undermine and perhaps even kill the nuclear deal with Iran, is not the answer.

Now, luckily for the American people, this bill is not going to go anywhere. Even if it were actually passed by both Chambers of Congress and made its way to the President's desk, it would be vetoed, and I strongly doubt that the Congress would be able to overturn a Presidential veto in support of such a clearly partisan bill.

Last week, Congress voted for the 62nd time to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and soon afterward, that bill was vetoed by the President. That is 62 times that Republicans wasted the American people's time and taxpayer dollars trying to take health care away from millions of families, all to make a political point.

Congress has already voted on the Iran deal. My colleagues who opposed the deal tried to kill it, and they failed. It is now official policy. Are House Republicans going to take us down the same path they did with the Affordable Care Act? Are we also going to vote on this bill 62 times, a bill that we know the President will veto, just so the Republicans can make a political point?

Let's stop wasting the American people's time on such bills. Let's put politics aside and actually work together to responsibly monitor implementation of the Iran deal and find ways to strengthen U.S. leverage in other areas of concern on Iran.

So I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 3662 and reject this rule.

Mr. Speaker, today, the House is also taking up two Republican bills that would have devastating effects on the environment and our Nation's public health. The first piece of legislation, S.J. Res. 22, is the Republican majority's fifth attempt to get rid of the Clean Water Rule. Here we are, having the same discussion once again, wasting the American taxpayers' time and money.

The Clean Water Rule was created in response to the Supreme Court declaring that the Clean Water Act needed to be narrowed and more clearly defined. So the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers did just that--they narrowed the scope and provided for much-needed clarification.

With the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers doing exactly what they were supposed to do, you would think that would be the end of it. The EPA's ability to protect our water from pollution has been narrowed and the industry received the clarification that they wanted.

Unfortunately, my Republican friends are pushing new legislation to further weaken vital environmental protections.

The final bill before us, H.R. 1644, the STREAM Act, is a bill that is going nowhere and is the same bill that Republicans brought up last year, with the only difference being--and this is a major difference, I guess--but the only difference is that they changed the name. Otherwise, it is the same thing.

Mr. Speaker, the sole purpose of this Republican bill is to reverse the rule that the Department of the Interior released last year that regulates the destructive practice of mountaintop removal mining.

It has long been known that mountaintop removal mining heavily pollutes drinking water, destroys wildlife habitats, and puts local communities at greater risk of contracting life-threatening diseases.

Keeping the American people healthy and safe should always be our first priority in Congress. Yet, this bill is more focused on making it easier for big energy companies to continue the destructive and dangerous practice of mountaintop removal and gives no thought whatsoever to the risks it poses to the American families nearby.

Before the recent rule released by the Department of the Interior in July 2015, parts of the regulations for mountaintop mining were more than 30 years old. Updates were clearly long overdue, and the fact that House Republicans are now actively working against the safeguards established by the rule is astounding.

Are Republicans so beholden to big coal companies that they would put the health and safety of our country's families at risk? This bill clearly suggests that the answer is yes.

Mr. Speaker, we are only 2 weeks into the new year, and instead of House Republicans starting the year by working in a bipartisan way to bring serious legislation to the floor, we are, once again, debating political messaging bills that fail to address the most pressing issues we face in a constructive way.

There is so much we need to do, and I believe that there is so much that we can agree on and actually move forward that will get through both Chambers and go to the White House and be signed and become law and actually improve things for the people of this country. That is what we are supposed to be doing here.

Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve a lot better than this.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to something the gentleman from Washington said when he basically made the statement that as long as committees take action, we don't need open rules. That is a whole new approach to the way this place is being run. I thought the Speaker of the House made it very clear he wanted more open rules. The previous Speaker of the House did, too. He didn't do that.

The bottom line is just because a committee took action on it, there are 435 Members of this House, and not everybody is on the same committee. We ought to be able to have a free-flowing debate, and people ought to be able to offer amendments. We ought to deliberate.

I am going to make a prediction that, if we did have an opportunity to truly be a deliberative body, you might get better legislation, and you might get legislation that gets lots of bipartisan support and actually gets signed into law and we get things done. Instead, we are stuck in this pattern where we really don't have regular order. We have order enforced with an iron fist where people are just locked out. It is not just Democrats that are locked out of the process; it is Republicans as well. When you close a rule down completely, it means nobody--nobody--has an opportunity to offer anything.

Mr. Speaker, I again continue to be amazed that the gentleman from Washington defends this process. I don't know how anybody can defend this process, it is so flawed. The end result is, again, bringing bills to the floor that are going nowhere and that are sound bites. They are not serious legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Statement of Administration Policy on all three bills in which the White House says they will veto these bills. Statement of Administration Policy h.r. 1644--stream act (Rep. Mooney, R-WV, and 34 cosponsors, Jan. 11, 2016)

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1644, which would delay for at least three years updated regulations, known as the Stream Protection Rule, to protect streams from the effects of destructive surface coal mining practices. Such a needless delay of these important safeguards would impact the communities and economies that depend on clean water and a healthy environment.

The current stream protection requirements governing surface mining activities are more than 30 years old and do not incorporate significant advances in scientific knowledge and mining and reclamation techniques. An arbitrary three year restriction to block the updated modern, science-based regulations would significantly impair the ability of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) to accomplish the mission and responsibilities the Congress laid out in the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, including preserving clean water, human health, and the environment.

H.R. 1644 would prevent the restoration of hundreds of streams, result in deterioration of water quality for thousands of stream miles, and create sustained regulatory uncertainty, as well as public health impacts for downstream communities. In addition, the bill would impose arbitrary requirements and unnecessary processes that would seriously impede OSMRE's ability to use the best available science to protect public health and the environment.

If the President were presented with H.R. 1644, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill. Statement of Administration Policy s.j. res. 22--disapproving epa/army rule on waters of the united states (Sen. Ernst, R-IA, and 49 cosponsors, Nov. 3, 2015)

The Administration strongly opposes S.J. Res. 22, which would nullify a specified Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of the Army (Army) final rule clarifying the jurisdictional boundaries of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The agencies' rulemaking, grounded in science and the law, is essential to ensure clean water for future generations, and is responsive to calls for rulemaking from the Congress, industry, and community stakeholders as well as decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. The final rule has been through an extensive public engagement process.

Clean water is vital for the success of the Nation's businesses, agriculture, energy development, and the health of our communities. More than one in three Americans get their drinking water from rivers, lakes, and reservoirs that are at risk of pollution from upstream sources. The protection of wetlands is also vital for hunting and fishing. When Congress passed the CWA in 1972 to restore the Nation's waters, it recognized that to have healthy communities downstream, we need to protect the smaller streams and wetlands upstream.

Clarifying the scope of the CWA helps to protect clean water, safeguard public health, and strengthen the economy. Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006 focused on specific jurisdictional determinations and rejected the analytical approach that the Army Corps of Engineers used for those determinations, but did not invalidate the underlying regulation. This has created ongoing questions and uncertainty about how the regulation is applied consistent with the Court's decisions. The final rule was developed to address this uncertainty and it should remain in place.

If enacted, S.J. Res. 22 would nullify years of work and deny businesses and communities the regulatory certainty needed to invest in projects that rely on clean water. EPA and Army have sought the views of and listened carefully to the public throughout the extensive public engagement process for this rule.

Simply put, S.J. Res. 22 is not an act of good governance. It would sow confusion and invite conflict at a time when our communities and businesses need clarity and certainty around clean water regulation.

If the President were presented with S.J. Res. 22, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 3662--iran terror finance transparency act (Rep. Russell, R-OK, and 62 cosponsors, Jan. 11, 2016)

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3662, the Iran Terror Finance Transparency Act, which would prevent the United States from implementing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) by tying the Administration's ability to fulfill U.S. commitments under the deal to unrelated, non- nuclear issues.

H.R. 3662 includes provisions that connect the United States' JCPOA commitment to provide sanctions relief by delisting certain Iran-related individuals and entities, including banks, to non-nuclear issues outside of the scope of the JCPOA. In addition, certain provisions would effectively preclude delisting of individuals or entities on Implementation Day of the JCPOA--the day on which the International Atomic Energy Agency verifies that Iran has completed key nuclear-related steps that significantly dismantle and constrain its nuclear program--based on activity that may have taken place and ended long before Implementation Day and involving persons or activity that will no longer be sanctioned post-Implementation Day. By preventing the United States from fulfilling its JCPOA commitments, H.R. 3662 could result in the collapse of a comprehensive diplomatic arrangement that peacefully and verifiably prevents Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Such a collapse would remove the unprecedented constraints on Iran's nuclear program that we achieved in the JCPOA, lead to the unraveling of the international sanctions regime against Iran, and deal a devastating blow to America's credibility as a leader of international diplomacy. This would have ripple effects, jeopardizing the hard work of sustaining a unified coalition to combat Iran's destabilizing activities in the region, calling into question the effectiveness of our sanctions regime and our ability to lead the world on nuclear non-proliferation.

The Administration has consistently made clear that the purpose of the nuclear negotiations, and ultimately the JCPOA, was to address one issue only--the international community's concerns over Iran's nuclear program and to verifiably prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The JCPOA is the mechanism through which the United States was able to garner international support for our sanctions and achieve a diplomatic resolution.

As we address our concerns with Iran's nuclear program through implementation of the JCPOA, the Administration remains clear-eyed and shares the deep concerns of the Congress and the American people about Iran's support for terrorism. Powerful sanctions targeting Iran's support for terrorism, its ballistic missile activities, its human rights abuses, and its destabilizing activities in the region remain in effect. Anyone worldwide who transacts with or supports individuals or entities sanctioned in connection with Iran's support for terrorism or development of WMD and their means of delivery, including missiles--or who does the same with any Iranian individual or entity who remains on Treasury's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List--puts themselves at risk of being sanctioned.

The President has made it clear that he will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of the JCPOA. If the President were presented with H.R. 3662, he would veto the bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a statement from the Win Without War coalition, 11 million activists across the country in opposition to H.R. 3662. A Statement From Drew Proctor, Advocacy Director of ``Win Without War''

The Win Without War coalition, on behalf of our 11 million activists, urges your office to stand strong against all attempts to undermine the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in Congress.

In particular, we urge Representative McGovern to OPPOSE H.R. 3662, the Iran Terror Finance Transparency Act.

H.R. 3662, which would prohibit President Obama from delivering on sanctions relief, has the potential to damage the leadership and credibility of the United States at this critical moment just before the historic agreement is implemented. Furthermore, the timing of the House's vote-- between President Obama's State of the Union speech and the deal's implementation date later this month--appears to be a deliberately partisan act designed to undermine the President and weaken his legacy. At a time when much of the Middle East is engulfed in war, the US has rightfully seized this opportunity to solve one of our most pressing national security threats without dropping a single bomb. We must not let political interests trump our national security goals. Huge progress has been made since the Iran deal was announced last July. Just yesterday, Iran reportedly took steps to remove the core of its plutonium reactor and fill it with concrete. Sincerely, Drew Proctor, Advocacy Director, Win Without War.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 65 environmental organizations representing millions of members in opposition to H.J. Res. 22. January 12, 2016.

Representative: The undersigned organizations, and our millions of members and supporters, oppose the Dirty Water Resolution (S.J. Res. 22). The ``Resolution of Disapproval'' under the Congressional Review Act attacks the Clean Water Rule, the Obama administration's landmark initiative to restore safeguards against pollution and destruction for lakes, streams, wetlands and other water bodies.

The Clean Water Rule restores important safeguards that once existed for a variety of water bodies. Those safeguards were eroded after a pair of Supreme Court decisions and by policies the Bush administration adopted, which left many water bodies inadequately protected or lacking the pollution control requirements of the Clean Water Act. The rule restores prior protections for many critical wetlands, which curb flooding, filter pollution, and provide habitat for a wide variety of wildlife, including endangered species and wildfowl and fish prized by hunters and anglers.

The Dirty Water Resolution is an extreme action that seeks to kill the Clean Water Rule using the Congressional Review Act, which goes far beyond stopping a disapproved administrative action. The Congressional Review Act says that an agency may not adopt ``a new rule that is substantially the same'' as the disapproved rule, and the breadth of that requirement is very unclear.

In the context of the Clean Water Rule, it could be read to prohibit EPA and the Army Corps from issuing any rule that establishes protections for waters that the Clean Water Rule covers, like lakes, streams, and wetlands. The Dirty Water Resolution radically undermines the agencies' ability to clarify the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act--despite urging from industry associations, conservation groups, members of Congress, state and local leaders, and Supreme Court justices for such a clarification.

By pursuing this anti-clean water resolution, pro-polluter members of the House of Representatives are seeking to kill a commonsense and modest rule containing scientifically-sound and legally-valid protections for the nation's waters, including critical drinlcing water supplies.

Restored clean water protections enjoy broad support. In polling for the American Sustainable Business Council, eighty percent of small business owners--including 91% of Democrats, 73% of Independents and 78% of Republicans--said they supported the then-proposed Clean Water Rule. A strong majority, 71%, also said that clean water protections are necessary to ensure economic growth; only six percent said they were bad for growth. Similarly, a bipartisan research team polled hunters and anglers nationwide and discovered that 83% surveyed thought that the Environmental Protection Agency should apply the rules and standards of the Clean Water Act to smaller, headwater streams and wetlands. Support for this policy was strong across the political spectrum, with 77% of Republicans, 79% of Independents and 97% of Democrats in favor.

We ask that you oppose the Dirty Water Resolution (S.J. Res. 22) because it will undermine protections for our drinking water supplies, flood buffers, and fish and wildlife habitat. This attack on clean water is not only a waste of the House's time but also an excessive and dangerous act that jeopardizes clean water for generations to come. Sincerely,

Alliance for the Great Lakes, American Rivers, American Whitewater, Amigos Bravos, Arkansas Public Policy Panel, BlueGreen Alliance, Central Minnesota Chapter of Audubon, Clean Water Action, Conservation Minnesota, Earthjustice, Endangered Habitats League, Environment America, Environment California, Environment Colorado, Environment Connecticut, Environment Florida, Environment Georgia, Environment Illinois, Environment Iowa, Environment Maine, Environment Maryland, Environment Massachusetts.

Environment Michigan, Environment Minnesota, Environment Montana, Environment New Hampshire, Environment New Jersey, Environment New Mexico, Environment New York, Environment North Carolina, Environment Oregon, Environment Texas, Environment Virginia, Environment Washington, Freshwater Future, Friends of the Cloquet Valley State Park, Friends of the Mississippi River, Great Lakes Committee--the Izaak Walton League, GreenLatinos, Greenpeace, Gulf Restoration Network, Hoosier Environmental Council, Iowa Environmental Council, Kentucky Waterways Alliance.

League of Conservation Voters, Michigan Wildlife Conservancy, Midwest Environmental Advocates, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, Minnesota Conservation Federation, Minnesota Environmental Partnership, Missouri Coalition for the Environment, Natural Resources Defense Council, Nature Abounds, Ohio Wetlands Association, PennEnvironment, Prairie Rivers Network, Religious Coalition for the Great Lakes, River Network, Save the Dunes, Shaker Lakes Garden Club, Sierra Club, Southern Environmental Law Center, Surfrider Foundation, Tennessee Clean Water Network, Wisconsin Environment, Wisconsin Wildlife Federation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from eight sportsmen and conservation organizations in strong opposition to S.J. Res. 22. January 11, 2016. Re Hunters and Anglers Strongly Oppose S.J. Res. 22 Invalidating the Final Clean Water Rule

Dear Representative: The undersigned sportsmen and conservation organizations strongly oppose Senate Joint Resolution 22, which the House of Representatives may vote on this week and would invalidate the final Clean Water Rule. This important rule clarifies Clean Water Act jurisdiction in a manner that is both legally and scientifically sound.

This joint resolution is an extraordinary and radical action to overturn a fundamental, once-in-a-generation final rule that is critical to the effective implementation of the 1972 Clean Water Act, and that was adopted following an exhaustive public rulemaking process. The resolution would overturn a rule that finally resolves longstanding confusion and debate, promotes clarity and efficiency for regulatory programs promoting river health, and preserves longstanding protections for farmers, ranchers, and foresters.

By using the Congressional Review Act, this joint resolution not only wipes out the final Clean Water Rule but also prohibits any substantially similar rule in the future. It locks in the current state of jurisdictional confusion and offers no constructive path forward for regulatory clarity or clean water. America's hunters and anglers cannot afford to have Congress undermine effective Clean Water Act safeguards, leaving communities and valuable fish and wildlife habitat at risk indefinitely.

This joint resolution dismisses the voices of the millions of Americans, including businesses that depend on clean water, who support the new rule and are eager to reap its benefits. The agencies engaged in a very transparent and thorough multi-year rulemaking process that included over 400 stakeholder meetings and an extended public comment period that produced over one million comments. Nearly 900,000 members of the public commented in support of the Clean Water Rule. A recent poll found that 83 percent of sportsmen and women think the Clean Water Act should apply to smaller streams and wetlands, as the new rule directs.

The Clean Water Rule clearly restores longstanding protections for millions of wetlands and headwater streams that contribute to the drinking water of 1 in 3 Americans, protect communities from flooding, and provide essential fish and wildlife habitat that supports a robust outdoor recreation economy. The sport fishing industry alone accounts for 828,000 jobs, nearly $50 billion annually in retail sales, and an economic impact of about $115 billion every year that relies on access to clean water. The Clean Water Rule will translate directly to an improved bottom line for America's outdoor industry.

Opponents claiming the rule goes too far and protects water too much have filed a barrage of nearly identical legal challenges in numerous district and appellate courts across the country. On October 9, 2015, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily stayed the Clean Water Rule nationwide. The Clean Water Rule and those who oppose it will have their day in court.

Meanwhile, we want Congress to know that despite these legal challenges, conservationists across the nation are steadfast in our support for the Clean Water Rule. After nearly 15 years of Clean Water Act confusion, further delay is unacceptable to the millions of hunters and anglers eager to have their local waters fully protected again. We are confident that, when the dust settles in the courts, the Clean Water Rule will withstand challenges saying it protects our water too much.

The Clean Water Act has always been about restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. It is bedrock support for America's more than 40 million hunters and anglers and for the 117 million Americans whose drinking water depends on healthy headwater streams.

We thank all of the members of Congress who stand with America's sportsmen and women to block attempts to derail the rule, and ask you to reject S.J. Res. 22 and any other legislative action against the rule that may follow this year. Sincerely,

American Fisheries Society, American Fly Fishing Trade Association, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, International Federation of Fly Fishers, Izaak Walton League of America, National Wildlife Federation, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Trout Unlimited.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from nine public interest, environmental, and labor organizations strongly opposing H.R. 1644. January 11, 2016.

Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members and supporters we strongly urge you to oppose the stream pollution bill, H.R. 1644, a bill expected on the House floor the week of January 11, 2016. This bill would put costly and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles in the already overburdened regulatory process with the sole intent of ensuring that coal companies can continue to destroy streams with coal wastes.

The present rules protecting such streams date to 1983. After the Department of Interior took several years to develop the proposed Stream Protection Rule, this bill requires a new study, this time by the National Academy of Sciences, on the effectiveness of the current decades-old surface mining regulation. The bill carves out two years for the completion of that study and then bars DOI from updating the rule for an additional year after that. In the meantime, communities will continue to shoulder the burden of water pollution and mining abuses. The intent of these new delays is clear: let the mining companies continue unimpeded with sacrificing the streams and health of the communities that surround their mines.

Another section of the bill adds new procedural hurdles before DOI can act under the surface mining law. Today, the Secretary and the heads of all rulemaking agencies regularly make available all the information relied upon concurrently with the proposed or final rule. Doing so enables stakeholders to weigh in during the public comment period on the basis for the proposal. This bill requires DOI to publish all scientific data used in a proposed rule 90 days before publication. It is unclear what the intent of this redundant provision is other than to congest the regulatory system with even more process and delay. If the Agency fails to meet this new paperwork burden, the goal of the authors is met--the protections must be delayed even further.

Unfortunately, these types of delay tactics are becoming increasingly common across the regulatory spectrum as polluters attempt to dodge their responsibilities. Thus, H.R. 1644 continues a dangerous trend of undermining public health and environmental protections under the guise of transparency. We urge you to vote against this legislation, both to protect mining communities and to our reject attempts to delay and frustrate improved regulatory protections. Sincerely,

Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Effective Government, Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, Economic Policy Institute, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Natural Resources Defense Council, Public Citizen, United Auto Workers, United States Public Interest Research Group.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Union of Concerned Scientists in strong opposition to H.R. 1644. Union of Concerned Scientists, September 9, 2015.

Dear Representative: The Union of Concerned Scientists, with 450,000 members and supporters throughout the country, strongly opposes The Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 1644, the STREAM ACT. H.R. 1644, as amended, would require the public disclosure of any and all information used to promulgate rules, and even policy guidance, relating to the Surface Mining and Control Act.

As we highlighted in Science, this proposal is just another example of what's becoming an old and tired song: an attempt to cloak an effort to block common-sense regulation in the guise of transparency. Furthermore, as we noted in a letter sent to the U.S. House of Representatives earlier this year opposing H.R. 1030, the Secret Science Reform Act, this type of proposal represents a solution in search of a problem and greatly impedes the agency's responsibility to protect public health and the environment.

The amended version improves the original bill by exempting certain types of data from public disclosure. However, the language is so vague, it will make it very difficult for scientists doing federally-funded research to know whether or not the data they have spent years collecting may be prematurely disclosed before they can publish their own studies. At the very least, this discourages scientists from doing any crucial research that may be required to be publicly disclosed.

Worse, by linking agency rulemaking to public disclosure, this bill risks the timely implementation of regulations and guidance documents that protect the public health and safety and our environment. Agency rules will be delayed if any piece of underlying data used to inform rules or guidance documents is not publicly disclosed 90 days before the proposed rule or guidance is published. This is flawed because the data is not owned by the Department of Interior and the release of the data is under the researcher's control. For each day the data is delayed, the comment period is extended by a day. If the delay lasts longer than six months, the rule must be withdrawn.

These restrictions apply even to emergency rules, unless a delay ``will pose an imminent and severe threat to human life.'' Notably missing here however is the environment. For example, if a stream is polluted at a level that doesn't pose an immediate risk but may pose a long-term risk, under this proposal, the environmental pollution could not be stopped until it might be too late.

This proposal offers special interests a new way to game the system, by challenging the comprehensiveness of any data that the Department of Interior submits to fulfill the bill's requirements. Who decides when the data includes ``all the data?'' How much data, for example, must be released to justify an economic assessment, or an environmental analysis or a guidance document?

Unanswered, too, is the question whether a regulation or guidance document based on exempt information is considered valid for purposes of this bill. Could the use of exempt information itself be grounds for a challenge?

This bill would also expend taxpayer dollars by requiring the Department of Interior to spend $2 million on a study to evaluate the ``effectiveness'' of 1983 regulation to protect perennial and intermittent streams through the use of stream buffer zones. But the goal of the study is not to actually help the Department of Interior become a better custodian of our environment.

The real goal is to impose a sweeping moratorium on all regulations related to stream buffer zones for the time it takes the National Academy of Sciences to complete the ``comprehensive study'' plus another year for review. Since the bill anticipates funding for the NAS in both 2016 and 2017, Interior regulations would be blocked for at least three years. If the study is never funded though, the rules would be indefinitely delayed.

We recommend that you oppose Representative Mooney's amendment to H.R. 1644, as well as the underlying bill. The proposal would inhibit the Department of Interior's ability to carry out its science and evidence-based responsibility to protect human health and the environment. We strongly urge you not to report this proposal out of committee. Sincerely, Andrew A. Rosenberg, Ph.D., Director, Center for Science and Democracy, Union of Concerned Scientists.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker,

Mr. Speaker, I would just simply say that there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to the environment, protecting the health and well-being of the people of this country, especially from industry. I think we, on the Democratic side, have consistently been on the side of protecting people, and my friends on the other side have been consistently on the side of industry, no matter what it means to people.

We see what is going on in Flint, Michigan, right now and the terrible water crisis that is happening there and the Republican Governor who is part of what appears to be a coverup at the expense of those citizens. It really is quite astonishing.

Again, this bill is going nowhere. It is going to be vetoed by the White House. So we can go through this charade.

I would just conclude right now, at least this portion of my speech here, by saying that, as I said in the beginning, if, in fact, my friends on the other side of the aisle want to get serious about legislating, there are areas of agreement on these environmental issues, and certainly on this issue regarding Iran, where Democrats and Republicans can come together. But for whatever reason, I think my Republican friends have no interest in serious legislating. I think that is regrettable because what we are doing here is wasting taxpayer money and wasting the people's time here in this Congress. We could be doing other things that could actually be moving this country forward.

I would just say to the gentleman that, if this were a serious effort to do something in response to Iran's behavior, this would be a bipartisan effort, but it isn't. It is clear what this is. This is a way to basically try to embarrass the President, I guess. That seems to be the motivation behind almost everything that is brought to this House floor.

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, we ought to be doing serious business here, and we are not. One of the things that we have been trying to do on our side is to bring to the floor legislation and amendments to deal with the terrible situation with regard to gun violence in our country. We are rebuffed at every moment. We can't bring anything to this floor with regard to guns, I guess because the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee doesn't want to tick off the National Rifle Association.

Be that as it may, I want to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up bipartisan legislation--this is actually Democrats and Republicans who support this--that would close a glaring loophole in our gun laws allowing suspected terrorists to legally buy firearms. This bill would bar the sale of firearms and explosives to those on the FBI's terrorist watch list.

Mr. Speaker, amidst gun violence in communities across our country and global acts of terrorism, it is time for Congress to act and keep guns out of the hands of suspected terrorists.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the life of me, I can't understand why somehow it is okay to bar suspected terrorists from flying on airplanes, but somehow it is this terrible infringement on their rights to say that they can't go out and buy a firearm. It makes absolutely no sense. I don't think the American people--whether you are Democrat or Republican or Independent--can figure out why people are so resistant to that here in this Congress.

Here is a novel idea. bring it to the floor. Allow us to have an up- or-down vote, not just a procedural vote, but a real up-or-down vote on this, and I am willing to bet that it will probably pass with a bipartisan vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker,

I have heard a couple of speakers now talk on this, and I think some of the confusion might be cleared up if they actually read the rule.

The gentlewoman from Washington who spoke earlier talked about that this would regulate puddles. Well, the clean water rule does not regulate puddles. In fact, numerous comments were submitted to EPA asking the Agency specifically to exclude puddles. I have got good news for you: the final rules does just that, and the clean water rule does not regulate most ditches either. We might as well get those facts on the table.

I would urge my colleagues on the other side that maybe they ought to read the rule before they come up with a bill like the one they came up with.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what else to say, other than the fact that this process stinks. Again, two closed rules and a structured rule on the third bill.

We have a controversial bill on Iran that is one of the most partisan pieces of legislation on foreign policy that has been brought to this floor by my Republican friends. It is really frustrating because I think there is a lot of common ground on holding Iran accountable where Democrats and Republicans could come together and actually craft something that had, if not unanimous support, almost unanimous support. I think that would be a powerful signal to send not only to Iran, but to the rest of the world. But instead of going down that road, my Republican friends decided to squander that opportunity and come up with a political sound bite.

The same goes for the two environmental bills that are being brought before this House. They are going nowhere, but they are nice sound bites, and they may please a particular special interest, but this is not serious legislating.

I am going to say to my colleagues again, I know you are going on your retreat this week, and maybe there ought to be a side meeting that some of my friends have about what it is that they think we ought to be doing here in this Chamber and what it is that they think that their job ought to be. I would suggest that it has to be about more than just political sound bites and messaging bills.

There is a lot that we need to get done. That requires us working together. I won't get everything I want and you may not get everything you want, but we need to figure out a way to make this place work because it is not working. There is a reason why the approval rating of Congress is like in the negative numbers. It is because people see consistently nothing but political sound bites and messaging bills come to the floor and get voted on and we debate them passionately, but they go nowhere. I think people would like us all better, Democrats and Republicans, if we actually accomplished something.

I hope you go on your retreat and you kind of reflect on that, and maybe you will come back the week after with a new outlook. Maybe all of these promises from the Speaker of the House and the previous Speaker of the House about a more open process about regular order will be more than words when you come back.

I would finally say again that I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring up this commonsense bipartisan bill to basically prevent those who are on the terrorist watch list from being sold guns.

Again, I, for the life of me, don't understand why it is so controversial, but in this House of Representatives it is.

Vote ``no'' on the previous question. Vote ``no'' on this closed rule, and reject this closed process.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source