Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the final rule of the Bureau of Land Management relating to "Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation".

Mr. President, if I sound a little hoarse, it is because my allergies are acting up, but I feel just fine.

Let me start out by thanking Senator Cantwell. Her leadership on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee is pretty incredible.

For this Congress, I think this is the very first CRA that has been turned down. We have been voting on many of them since the Congress came back in session in January. This is the very first victory we have had on denying the CRA.

When we talk about what a CRA does, it is a very blunt instrument that has only been used once until this Congress, and what it does is just blow out an entire area of the law. So if you talk about this BLM methane rule and you have a part of the law that says the government shall try to prevent waste, well, if you blow that provision of the law out, the agency can do nothing until we get to the point that the Congress acts again, and sometimes we move very slowly.

So I really appreciate the leadership of Senator Cantwell, and I want to thank her so much and all of the members of her committee, in particular, Senator Heinrich. Senator Heinrich serves on that committee and has been very outspoken on this rule, and I believe his leadership has always been acknowledged by Senator Cantwell as well.

This issue that we are debating and that we had this good vote on is about three things. First of all, it is about the waste of a natural resource that the public and the Tribes own. Let's talk about the resource here for a second. We are talking about, to start with, natural gas. So when we think of natural gas, as many people know, what we are talking about is when you turn on your stove, and it is a natural gas stove, that is how we cook our food. Many houses run and heat on natural gas, and we know now that many of our powerplants are converting over to natural gas because it is a very good fuel in terms of lowering carbon emissions. So natural gas is a big part of our energy economy. It is actually going up as coal is going down.

Look at this photograph which shows more than $330 million of natural gas wasted. This just shows us the huge power of natural gas. What was happening is that natural gas was being flared. This depicts the top at one of these oil and gas operations. They are just burning that up. So rather than that energy being used at home or used in industry, it is just being wasted. On top of that, we know it has a massive climate impact.

This was a very commonsense rule. I think the thing people should understand is that several Western States, including Colorado and Wyoming, passed an almost identical rule to deal with this issue. All BLM tried to do was to use that common sense from the West, where it had already happened in several States, and put it in place for

the Nation. So this is a good, solid rule, and it is a commonsense rule, and I think it prevents waste, just like it was laid out to do.

The second point is that when we talk about this issue, it is about job creation. What we are talking about here is, when you have this kind of waste, how do you prevent the waste? Well, the thing we have seen in New Mexico that occurs is that many of these oil and gas industries reach out to people who maybe haven't been in business, and they say: How do we prevent this waste? Well, actually, we use infrared to focus on the oil and gas operations and all of their pipes, and we can detect the natural gas waste, and then we can go about actually fixing it at all the various fittings and places where that happens. Guess what. A lot of jobs are created in that process. This is growing in New Mexico, growing in Colorado, and with this rule in place, over time, it is going to continue to grow. So this is going to create some small businesses. It has already created small businesses, and it is going to be pretty dramatic on that front.

The third thing that we are here about has to do with public health. Obviously, if you are venting all of this--and as Senator Cantwell showed, you have a methane cloud the size of Delaware over the Four Corners area; so it is really impacting New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and Arizona--what is the impact in terms of methane? Well, we know there are serious public health impacts. We know that asthma is impacted by this, as well as other respiratory diseases--the kinds of things that occur on a regular basis as we have that kind of methane pollution that goes into the air. As I mentioned just a little bit earlier, methane is a very, very powerful and potent greenhouse gas. So we know that by releasing it--the flaring that we talked about--we are wasting it and we are putting that methane into the atmosphere. We are also adding to the greenhouse gases, which are warming the planet and creating, in the Southwest, as we know, catastrophic forest fires, extreme weather events, impacts on water, and impacts on agriculture. So we know that it is here now and that the Western States are in the bull's-eye.

So let me just say that these are three commonsense things that we have done today by asserting this rule. We are preventing waste, we are moving job creation, and we are acting on the part of public health.

When we have a victory like this, there are just so many people that should be congratulated--people that pulled together. First of all, just to start, Senator Cantwell just finished, and she is our ranking member on the committee. Senator Bennet, I think, was actually the 51st, and I hope he tweeted that out. When he came over, we were at 50, and it went to 51. So he and all of the Democrats hung together on this--every single one of the Democrats. It just shows that when we get Democratic unity--and with our Independents--we come right up on about 48 votes. If we get a couple of Republicans--if we work in a bipartisan way--to come with us, we can have a big impact. Who are the Republicans who voted with us? They should be called out and congratulated for having courage, for having common sense, and for stepping forward. I would just like to say about my three friends on the Republican side-- Senator McCain, Senator Collins, and Senator Graham--thank you so much for stepping forward and seeing the commonsense nature of this issue and standing to make sure that we didn't head in the wrong direction on this.

Thinking a little bit about some of the groups that voted with us and worked with us and helped us and advised us out in the field, the groups that stood with us shoulder to shoulder include the Environmental Defense Fund, the Wilderness Society, and the Ceres business group. We had a lot of businesses--understanding that this is a business issue and a job creator--like Taxpayers for Common Sense. We don't always see them weigh in on regulations like this. The Center for Methane Emissions Solutions, and so many environmental and public health groups, including Earth Justice, the National Parks Association, the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, and many, many others, including the Western Environmental Law Center, are also a part of that.

I thought we should talk for a second about--in addition to all of those groups--some other groups that joined us, and they are these medical and public health groups that abhor natural gas waste. Look at all of these groups in addition to the ones I mentioned. These are people who have real expertise in public health: Allergy & Asthma Network, American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, Center for Climate Change and Health, and Physicians for Social Responsibility. I have always been impressed by that group. Here you have docs who are stepping up, wanting to be socially responsible on things. There are many wonderful physicians like that in New Mexico and across the Nation, and they have organized themselves as PSR. We also have the Public Health Institute and the National Medical Association.

So we have a lot of these medical and public health groups that have stepped forward and said: We are not going to waste natural gas. Let me thank them.

Also, the Western Environmental Law Center, which is in New Mexico and works on this issue, has been a pretty incredible group, hard- working, headed up by a gentleman by the name of Doug Meiklejohn, and Doug really makes a difference on all of these issues in New Mexico and, in particular, really helped us out here.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention some of the groups that have pulled together--groups of ranchers, Tribes, and public health groups. We just talked about the public health groups. But there is one rancher in New Mexico whose sole focus has been this issue. His name is Don Schreiber. He appeared at a press conference yesterday here in Washington with Senator Bennet and Senator Cantwell. I was at my own press conference, and more or less as a Senator there, speaking out on methane. I know if Don is ever at a press conference, he is going to say what I would have said on this methane issue, which is that we have to prevent waste. Don Schreiber is his name. He is a rancher from Northwestern New Mexico. He is actually up under that methane cloud, and he talks about his family and his ranching operation and what the impact is.

We also have Tribes in that area. I want to congratulate and thank President Begaye of the Navajo Nation. He sent in a very persuasive statement and made a very strong statement against wasting natural gas.

We also had the Western Organization of Resource Councils. This is another group that has been very active in the West. They stepped forward on this natural gas waste issue, and we are incredibly thankful to them.

Also, we never get anything done around here on the Senate floor without our wonderful staff. I want to thank Jonathan Black, who has worked on this issue for many years. Jonathan actually worked for Senator Bingaman on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, so he brought a lot of that expertise. We have a young man from the office sitting here with me on the floor, Sean MacDougall, helping me with these charts. Sean is a congressional fellow in our office on loan from the Bureau of Land Management, and he has brought a lot of knowledge to the table.

Mr. President, to reiterate, I oppose H.J. Res. 36--the Congressional Review Act resolution to disapprove the Bureau of Land Management's methane and waste prevention rule. BLM's rule prevents the unnecessary waste of a public resource and makes sure New Mexicans--and all American taxpayers--get fair value in return for commercial use of that public resource.

The rule requires oil and gas facilities operating on public and Indian lands to prevent unnecessary flaring, venting, and leaking of methane. Rigorous analysis shows that the overall benefits to the American public far outweigh the costs, and technology to implement the rule is readily available and cost-effective to industry.

The current BLM rules on natural gas waste are over 35 years old, issued in 1979. Federal watchdog agencies have been issuing reports for almost a decade--recommending that the BLM update its rules and prevent waste wherever possible.

With new technologies like horizontal drilling, the amount of gas wasted in recent years has increased significantly. From 2009 to 2013, the total

amount of natural gas flared on BLM land doubled.

We throw the phrase ``common sense'' around a lot these days when we talk about laws or regulations we like, but the BLM's waste prevention rule really is a commonsense rule.

Over the past 4 months, Congress has repealed 13 Federal rules using CRA authority. These regulations involved years of work by the agencies and were developed transparently through the public notice and comment process. Congress overturned these rules without public input, hearings, or debate.

I understand repeal of ``burdensome'' Federal regulations is a strong rallying cry, and I wholeheartedly agree that Federal regulations should not be overly burdensome.

The BLM's waste prevention rule is good for the American public, and the cost to industry is de minimus. In fact, there is benefit to industry from increased production and the resulting increase in revenues. The BLM's rule is one rule that should not get swept up in the political tide of CRA repeal.

Congress has spoken loud and clear that the BLM has an obligation to prevent waste of oil and gas on public and tribal lands starting with the 1920 Mineral Leasing Act.

That act--governing leases on BLM lands--requires every lease to contain provisions for ``the prevention of undue waste. . . .''

Federal law obligates the BLM to make sure the public gets a fair return from profits generated by oil and gas leases on public lands. The 1976 Federal Lands Policy and Management Act requires that ``the United States receive fair market value of the use of the public lands and their resources. . . .''

The 1982 Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act obligates these same oil and gas companies to pay the Federal Government ``royalty payments on oil or gas lost or wasted.''

Congress has determined that oil and gas companies extracting resources on public lands can't waste the resource, and, if they do, they must pay fair market value to the American public.

Despite Congress's prohibition against waste, tremendous volumes of oil and gas under BLM lease are wasted each year through flaring, venting, and leaks.

Operators do not always use best practices when they flare and vent. Some even abuse the practice. As a result, operators vent and flare significant amounts of oil and gas that are economically recoverable.

Natural gas is colorless and odorless, so you can't see leaks with the naked eye. Operators do not always use best practices to detect and prevent leaks either, but we now have readily available technology, like infrared cameras, that quickly and easily identify leaks. We don't let leaky pipes in our homes go unattended. For-profit companies shouldn't be given a free pass to let gas leak on public lands.

Oil and gas operators under BLM leases reported flaring and venting 462 billion cubic feet of natural gas from 2009 through 2015. That is enough gas to supply over 6.2 million households for one year. That is every household in the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.

An independent study by ICF International estimates that, in 2013 alone, 65 billion cubic feet of gas was wasted. That includes over 18 billion cubic feet from tribal lands, with an estimated loss to the American public of $27 million in royalties.

The amount of oil and gas waste is rising dramatically. Oil and gas operators report flaring has increased over 1,000 percent between 2009 and 2015. The number of applications to vent or flare royalty free has gone from 50 in 2005 to 622 in 2011 to 1,246 in 2014.

The BLM's outdated rules and the loss of royalties caught the attention of the Government Accountability Office years ago.

A 2010 GAO report estimated that approximately 128 billion cubic feet of natural gas was vented or flared from Federal leases in 2008 and that approximately 50 billion cubic feet was economically recoverable. That recoverable gas represented $23 million in lost royalties in 1 year.

The 2010 GAO report highlighted real world experiences, where operators made money by putting in technologies to recover gas instead of venting or flaring. One large producer in the San Juan Basin installed equipment that reduced venting by 99 percent. That same company reported increased revenues of $5.8 million, from a $1.2 million investment in technology to reduce emissions during well completion. That is money well spent.

The San Juan Basin is one of the oldest and most productive gas- producing areas in the United States. It lies in the Four Corners area, where my home State of New Mexico touches Arizona, Colorado, and Utah.

That area is home to a methane ``hot spot,'' with the highest concentration of methane in the Nation.

In 2010, the GAO pointed out what was obvious, that the BLM's decades-old guidance did not take account of current technology to reduce venting and flaring. The GAO recommended that the BLM update its regulations to address the avoidable loss of gas on public lands.

There are other GAO reports, but I will talk about one more.

In 2016, the GAO issued a report entitled, ``Interior Could Do More to Account for and Manage Natural Gas Emissions.'' It detailed the BLM's highly inconsistent practices approving royalty-free venting and flaring incidents.

Looking at a random sample of operator requests to vent or flare from fiscal year 2014, the GAO found that fully 90 percent had inadequate documentation, but, despite the bad documentation, the BLM approved 70 percent of the requests, almost half of which were for royalty-free venting or flaring. That is a lot of Federal, State, and tribal royalties lost based on incomplete records.

The GAO is charged with helping Congress make sure Federal agencies are doing the best job they can for the American public. We should not disregard repeated GAO recommendations--spanning almost a decade--for the BLM to modernize its oil and gas royalty program.

If we pass this disapproval, the BLM is foreclosed from updating these rules. In the face of the GAO report after another telling us that the BLM must do better, that would be just irresponsible to taxpayers.

Secretary Zinke has been charged to review the BLM rule as part of the President's ``Energy Independence'' Executive order. If, after review, the Secretary concludes that the BLM rule should be modified, the Department of the Interior can proceed to amend the rule through the public rulemaking process, but, when we have been told time and time again that there is unnecessary waste and the BLM rules need updating, Congress should allow the DOI review to go forward and not permanently prevent DOI from considering how to prevent unnecessary waste by oil and gas facilities.

Let's not forget that half the royalties from Federal leases go to State treasuries. States use these royalties for schools, roads, and infrastructure projects.

My home State of New Mexico has the second highest number of acres under BLM lease in the country, after Wyoming--over 4.6 million acres-- and the second highest number of BLM oil and gas leases--over 8,000.

New Mexico has a lot at stake in the BLM's waste prevention rule.

ICF International estimates that the natural gas in New Mexico that could have been captured and marketed under the BLM's rule between 2009 and 2013 would have been worth more than $100 million a year and would have produced $43 million in royalty payments for our State.

In New Mexico, those royalty payments are used in part for educational materials in the public schools. That is textbooks, digital materials, science supplies, art supplies, and accessible materials for students with disabilities. That $43 million would have gone a long way for New Mexico schoolkids.

Many of you may be aware of the methane ``hot spot'' over the Four Corners area that I talked about earlier. The hot spot covers about 2,500 square miles--the size of the State of Delaware.

This single cloud comprises nearly 10 percent of all methane emissions from natural gas in the United States. The San Juan Basin is ranked No. 1 in per capita methane pollution in the U.S.

Scientists have been researching the sources of this methane plume. When the hot spot was discovered, oil and gas companies claimed the high concentrations were caused by ``natural''

sources, but researchers have found out this is wrong. They have identified 250 sources--the majority of which are oil and gas operations and include gas wells, storage tanks, pipelines, and processing plants.

Of the four States, only Colorado has robust rules to prevent methane emissions. Colorado's rules are proving successful, and the BLM incorporated provisions from those rules.

It is important for my State that the BLM's waste prevention rule stay on the books. We don't need that methane hot spot in our backyard and New Mexico sorely needs the royalty payments owed.

The BLM's rule is also important for tribes. As vice-chair of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, I work to make sure the Federal Government upholds all its trust responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is making sure tribes get the royalties they are entitled to from private oil and gas companies operating on Indian lands.

Tribes receive 100 percent of the royalties from the oil and gas leases on their lands. The BLM estimates tribes will get up to $12 million more in royalties over 10 years under the rule. That is money we have a trust responsibility to make sure tribes get.

The BLM estimates the rule would reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, by 310,000 tons over 10 years on tribal lands. Reducing VOC emissions means cleaner air for tribes.

The Federal Government will not be upholding its trust responsibility if the BLM rule is repealed.

I have a statement from the Navajo Nation president, Russell Begaye, detailing the reasons the tribe supports the BLM's rule. President Begaye states, ``It would be contrary to BLM's trust responsibility to allow Navajo Nation resources to be unreasonably wasted, particularly when best practices can be cost-effectively employed and are not overly burdensome to industry.''

A really important cobenefit of the rule is protection of public health. Toxic chemicals like benzene--harmful to the public, carcinogenic--are emitted with methane. Reducing methane emissions will reduce these toxic emissions.

Similarly, other VOCs--that contribute to ozone or smog--are emitted with methane. Reducing methane emissions will reduce smog formation. Smog irritates the respiratory system, reduces lung function, and aggravates asthma--among other public health problems.

Without the Rule, not only do we lose royalties for hospitals, schools, and roads, but citizens pay more for their hospital visits and healthcare.

Industry arguments against the rule do not hold up.

Industry argues the rule costs too much and will kill jobs.

That is not true. Here are the facts.

First, the rule will result in increased production and increased revenues, and the technologies and practices to prevent waste are economically feasible.

In fact, many oil and gas operations will see a net benefit. Like the company in the San Juan Basin that got almost a fivefold return on its investment.

The BLM conducted an exhaustive cost-benefit analysis of the rule.

Looking at the average cost to a company to implement the rule, the BLM found that profits would be reduced by only 0.15 percent, a bit over one-tenth of 1 percent. That is minimal.

That cost does not even count the savings to industry from increased production and increased revenues.

In fact, the BLM found that net economic benefits to industry could be as much as $47 million per year--taking into account the savings from increased revenues.

If the benefits of reducing methane are included, the overall net benefit is huge--up to $204 million annually.

That number does not even count the public health benefits from reduced ozone and hazardous pollutants.

Opponents have exaggerated the costs to industry, and they have not taken into account the benefits to States, tribes, and the public.

Finally, there is no evidence anywhere that the rule will cost even one job.

In fact, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has recorded 2,700 new jobs since November 2016, while the price of oil has stayed flat. This month, the Baker Hughes rig count showed 300 more rigs drilling for oil and gas since the BLM rule came into effect. This is an increase in production of over 50 percent.

Colorado issued the most comprehensive rules to date to decrease methane emissions, and not only have no jobs been lost, but jobs have been gained as new companies and technologies focused on inspection, monitoring, and compliance have opened. These are good American jobs.

In New Mexico, we have at least 11 new companies in the methane mitigation business, and I want to see that number grow.

Even if the rule were to force an operator to shut down, that company would be eligible for exemption from the requirements.

So job loss is not an issue.

Second, we hear that the BLM's rule is duplicative and unnecessary, that the EPA's methane rule is adequate, and that States are already regulating methane.

Here are the facts.

The EPA's rule only applies to new and modified oil and gas operations. The BLM's rule applies also to existing facilities. This is a big difference between the rules. Making sure all current operations prevent waste is critical to making sure taxpayers get the benefit owed.

The BLM's rule covers areas not covered by other Federal or State rules, like wasteful routine flaring.

Not all States have passed methane waste prevention rules. My home State of New Mexico has not. New Mexico needs to reduce methane emissions.

Also, States and tribes may get a variance if they have similar rules that achieve the same results.

The BLM worked with the EPA and States to ensure the rule works for them and does not impose conflicting or redundant requirements.

Just last week, the EPA announced a 90-day delay on its own methane control rule based on industry's objections to regulation. More concerning, the EPA withdrew its information request from industry that was intended to help EPA determine how to address methane emissions from existing oil and gas sources. These EPA actions mean the BLM rule is needed more than ever to reduce natural gas waste and the proper collection of royalties.

Third, we hear that the BLM lacks the authority to regulate methane waste.

In January of this year, the U.S. District Court of Wyoming denied a preliminary injunction to block the rule. The court found that the rule ``unambiguously'' was within the BLM's authority.

The Congressional Review Act is a blunt tool, and it is the wrong tool for Congress to use to change provisions in BLM's methane waste prevention rule. Disapproval under the CRA would permanently block the BLM's authority to reform outdated rules, reforms that the GAO began recommending almost a decade ago.

The BLM should not be prevented from making sure the Federal Government meets its obligations to States, tribes, and taxpayers--the obligation not to waste public resources and to make sure the public gets a fair return on the for-profit use of public resources.

For these reasons, I oppose the CRA to disapprove the BLM's waste prevention rule.

Just as a final word to summarize why we are here and why this victory was so important and why we need to hang tough on this: This could be changed if they decide to do another vote or if they try to do another piece of legislation or something. The core of this needs to be protected. We are here because we don't want to waste our natural resources, which belong to the people of America and belong to the Tribes. We want to create jobs, which is what this BLM methane waste prevention rule does. It creates jobs, and it protects the public health.

I believe we are going to have a couple other speakers. I know Senator Heinrich is going to be here.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I rise in strong opposition to this resolution, which would waste resources, waste money, pollute our air, and worsen the impacts of climate change.

When it comes to regulations that we should keep on the books, the BLM Methane Waste Prevention Rule is a no-brainer. Currently, oil and gas companies are venting, flaring, or leaking hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of natural gas each and every year.

People who are sitting at home may wonder: Why would a company simply waste or burn off such a valuable resource?

The answer is simple: They want the oil, and they want it now. To them, the natural gas that goes along with the oil is just a nuisance; so they burn it off or they don't make the effort that is required to ensure that their equipment isn't leaking.

The problem is, when they are operating on public lands, this isn't their natural gas to waste. They cannot waste this. This belongs to the American people. So when that gas is simply burned off or is allowed to escape, the royalties that are owed to the American people are gone with the wind; and instead of generating electricity or heating our homes, this wasted resource generates pollution and heats our planet.

For people who live near oil and gas wells, this is not just a climate problem. Methane contributes to low-level ozone, which causes a number of health problems, such as shortness of breath, more frequent asthma attacks, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. When the methane leaks, you also get leaks of benzene, which is a known carcinogen, and of other volatile organic chemicals that further contribute to ozone and smog and can contribute to liver and kidney damage, nausea, and other health problems.

Now, my colleagues on the other side say that this is exactly the problem--the Bureau of Land Management is trying to regulate air pollution, and that is the job of the Environmental Protection Agency. The fact is, though, that the Bureau of Land Management has very clearly written a waste prevention rule, as they are authorized and required. I will state that again--as they are authorized and required to do under the Mineral Leasing Act.

Section 30 of the Mineral Leasing Act reads:

Each lease shall contain provisions for the purpose of

insuring the exercise of reasonable diligence, skill, and

care in the operation of said property; a provision that such

rules for the safety and welfare of the miners and for the

prevention of undue waste as may be prescribed by said

Secretary shall be observed.

The BLM simply did its job by writing this rule, and now that they have done the job that Congress required of them, the majority is attempting to argue that Congress never gave the BLM that job in the first place. If you look at the statute, that claim is clearly an alternative fact. Just because preventing the waste of methane helps keep our air clean and moderates the severity of climate change, it doesn't mean the BLM is doing anything outside of their authority. The BLM is not regulating the quality of the air around oil and gas sites. It is just trying to make sure that methane stays out of the atmosphere and gets into the marketplace.

Another argument you have heard from the majority is that this is an effort to shut down oil and gas production on Federal lands. It is just another salvo in their war, which they claim is the Obama war on energy, except that that is simply not true. I am almost tired of having to say this, but the production of Federal onshore oil went up, not a little bit--it went way up under President Obama--but by 71 percent, as a matter of fact, between 2009 and 2015.

Now, would this Methane Waste Prevention Rule hurt production? Would it drive operators off Federal lands?

To answer that, let's just take a look at one of our States-- Colorado, which, in early 2014, enacted methane venting and flaring regulations that the BLM used as a model in writing its own rule. I want to state this really clearly: after Colorado enacted their methane regulations, their production went up 47 percent from 2013 to 2014 and another 32 percent in 2015. Colorado's oil production from Federal lands has been up 28 percent over the past 5 years also.

Clearly, strong methane waste regulations do not scare away oil and gas companies.

What about the claim that companies have to burn off natural gas because the BLM takes too long to process pipeline applications?

If we look at a recent report from the Government Accountability Office just from last year, they found that only 9 percent of flaring was due to the lack of pipelines and that 91 percent had nothing to do with pipelines.

How about the point that is made at the oil and gas companies' insistence that they are making great strides in reducing their own methane emissions so they don't need additional oversight?

Members, that is a myth as well. Oil and gas producers in the field emitted 45 percent more methane in 2014 than they did in 1990. In fact, methane emissions from oil and gas producers went up 21 percent in the past 24 years.

The majority also says this is a power grab, an effort by BLM to take power away from the States, except that the BLM has regulated venting and flaring since the Carter administration. And this has not stopped States from setting their own regulations, as I have just said that Colorado

has done, which they will still be free to do under this rule. In fact, despite all the complaints about one-size-fits-all regulations, companies still have to follow State regulations when they operate on Federal land.

Mr. Speaker, none of these arguments against the regulation hold any water, but the benefits of this regulation would be huge: enough gas saved to supply up to 740,000 households each year; the reduction of an estimated 185,000 tons of methane emissions, which would have the same impact as taking nearly 1 million cars off the road; and up to $14 million each year to the American taxpayer from additional royalties, and that number could be even larger if the price of natural gas increases, which the majority is trying to do by expediting natural gas exports.

The BLM methane waste prevention rule is a win for the taxpayer, a win for the environment, a win for the climate, and a win for common sense. That is why it is supported by over 80 percent of voters in Western States, including both Democrats and Republicans, according to a poll just released this week. If my colleagues have not seen that poll, I would be happy to share it with them.

Unfortunately, the Republican antiregulatory, antitaxpayer, antihealth, antienvironment machine must be continually fed. Earlier this week, they voted to strip clean water and transparency regulations. Today, they are going after clean air.

I ask my colleagues to stand up and put a stop to this, to speak for the ordinary Americans who don't own oil and gas or coal companies, which those companies donate immense sums of money to politicians. The industry has to do its share and not simply demand that the farmers, the ranchers, the sportsmen, the conservationists, and all the rest of us have to put up with their waste in the name of higher profits. I ask my colleagues to do this by voting ``no'' on H.J. Res. 36.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).

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

I want to be very clear about the situation on public lands because there are a lot of misleading statements that are being thrown about. We heard that the majority insists that oil and gas production on Federal lands is down. To support this, they often show misleading charts that compare apples to oranges or use visual tricks to hide the facts.

The facts are Federal onshore oil production was up 71 percent between 2009 and 2015. All the panic that we have heard for years that President Obama is trying to shut down oil and gas was based on as much reality as the claim that he was coming to get everyone's guns.

I will say it again: there was a 71 percent increase in oil production on onshore Federal lands under President Obama's watch. And it is the oil producers that are wasting and leaking methane at a faster and faster rate since it is not a product they care about. They just want the oil.

With an unfortunate likely return to a drill-at-all-cost mentality under President Trump, we need the BLM methane waste prevention rule more than ever. I urge my colleagues to defeat H.J. Res. 36 and support cutting down on methane waste.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot from Members from Colorado about how this onerous methane rule will hurt industry in Colorado. I would like to read from a couple of Colorado editorials that came out this past week in support of maintaining the BLM methane rule.

On Saturday, The Denver Post posted an editorial entitled ``Congress shouldn't butcher federal methane rules.'' In it, they say: ``Congress is getting ready to use an ax where it needs a scalpel. . . .''

Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Review Act is an ax. It is an ax being swung blindfolded after several shots of whiskey. It shows a complete lack of seriousness on the issue, and it could have serious, long-term consequences.

That is why The Denver Post editorial board asks Republicans to be surgeons and not butchers, and to avoid repealing what they call a thoughtful regulation.

This past week, another editorial was published on Wednesday by the Grand Junction, Colorado Daily Sentinel entitled, ``Stop methane leaks.'' Referring to their State's own methane waste rules, they say: ``We're fortunate to have the rule in Colorado. But if the federal rule isn't enforced, the results can undermine our own gains.''

Air quality does not recognize State lines. Under-regulated drilling in Utah produces bad air that blows into the western slope communities.

These editorial boards have seen firsthand that methane waste prevention rules work, and they know that it is in everyone's interest to keep the BLM rule in place.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reinforce a point that I made in my opening statement. Oil and gas companies and the industry would like to say they have done a tremendous job cutting methane emissions on their own.

In fact, just this week, the Western Energy Alliance spearheaded a letter saying: ``Methane emissions from oil and gas production have declined by 15 percent since 1990, without any Federal regulations.''

What we have been hearing today, and my friends on the other side, is continually using some variation of this reduction that they say occurs. The problem is, and I repeat that the problem is, is that claim is just flat out false. That is the definition of an alternative fact.

Methane reduction, since 1990, has come entirely from natural gas storage, from the distribution and the transmission of natural gas. Out in the field, however, what we are talking about, out in the field, where companies are actually drilling, methane emissions are up.

For natural gas production, methane in the field, methane emissions are up by 31 percent. For oil production, emissions are up a staggering 76 percent.

Mr. Speaker, the industry has not fixed this problem on their own, and they are not going to fix this problem on their own. Only strong rules and oversight are going to hold companies accountable to reduce methane waste and, for that reason, we must defeat this resolution.

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

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

As I have mentioned before, Mr. Speaker, this rule will not just reduce waste and increase taxpayer revenues, it will also reduce air pollution and improve public health.

In support of that, we received a letter this week from 13 medical and public health groups, including the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, the Public Health Institute, and many more, pointing out the importance of the BLM methane waste prevention rule for cutting down on harmful methane emissions.

They write: ``. . . we strongly urge you to oppose any Congressional Review Act resolution of disapprov- al . . .'' for the BLM rule.

They point to the volatile organic compounds that also pollute the air when natural gas leaks, saying that these chemicals ``include benzene, a known carcinogen; ethylbenzene, a probable carcinogen; and toluene, a neurotoxin that may also cause miscarriages and birth defects.''

Also, these chemicals are ``precursors to the formation of ground- level ozone, a dangerous air pollutant that causes permanent lung damage. By limiting emissions of volatile organic chemicals, oil and natural gas limits will reduce the risk of ozone formation in the air and, thus, the risk of ozone-related health effects, including asthma attacks, hospital admissions, and, unfortunately, premature deaths.''

These health impacts are just one more set of reasons why repealing the BLM Methane Waste Prevention Rule is the wrong way to go.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it may no longer be Groundhog Day, but it feels like we have been here doing the same thing over and over again.

Once again, Republicans are doing the bidding of wealthy fossil fuel companies at the expense of ordinary Americans. On Wednesday, we were here so our majority could strip away clean water protections from coal mining. Later on that day, the majority gave our new Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, the former CEO of ExxonMobil, a gift by repealing the requirement for oil and gas companies to tell the public how much money they paid to foreign governments.

Now, today we are here to shower more goodies onto the oil and gas industry by repealing a rule designed to keep them from wasting--and I urge you to hear that term, ``wasting''--natural gas and also polluting our air.

Really, Mr. Speaker? Less than 2 weeks into the new all-Republican government and they are already handing out early Valentine's Day gifts to their wealthy donors. Instead of chocolates and flowers, they are giving their oil and coal executives the right to pollute our air, dump waste into our water, and do it all under the cover of darkness. Republicans are using the Congressional Review Act so fast that I doubt they even know what they are repealing from day to day. It's Friday, so I guess it must be air pollution day.

Let me warn everyone that is watching this telecast that they are not going to stop at trying to destroy clean air, clean water, and transparency. Dozens of health, safety, transparency, and consumer protections are on the chopping block, and Republicans are more than happy to swing the ax.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to protect the BLM Methane Waste Prevention Rule and defeat this resolution.

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

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

I include in the Record two letters opposing this resolution and supporting the BLM Methane Waste Prevention Rule. The first is from 78 environmental, conservation, public interest, and sportsmen's groups urging a ``no'' vote on this resolution. The second is a letter from 13 public health and medical organizations strongly urging a ``no'' vote on this resolution because of the damage that it will do to public health.

January 31, 2017.

Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of our millions of

members and supporters, we write to urge you to oppose any

effort to use the Congressional Review Act to overturn the

Bureau of Land Management's Methane and Natural Gas Waste

Rule. We rely on laws and regulations to protect taxpayer

resources and to keep our air and water clean and healthy.

While we oppose the use of the CRA for any rule, the BLM rule

is one of the anticipated targets to be considered under a

Congressional Review Act Resolution.

The BLM rule is a common sense policy that requires the oil

and gas industry to reduce venting, flaring, and leaks at

industry operations on public and tribal lands by deploying

methane mitigation technology. Currently, more than $330

million worth of natural gas is wasted on public and tribal

lands each year, meaning that taxpayers could lose out on

$800 million in royalties over the next decade due to venting

and flaring of this gas. Repealing this rule would harm

public health and reduce revenue to the federal government

and Western states. The BLM estimates the rule's net benefits

range from $46 to $204 million per year. And economic studies

have found the technologies and practices included in this

rule to be very cost effective since the gas captured can be

sold to the benefit of industry and taxpayers. Leaked natural

gas contains volatile organic compounds, an asthma irritant;

benzene; and other hazardous air pollutants that are known.

carcinogens. After Colorado implemented a similar rule,

natural gas production increased, and the standard has been

popular.

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) is a blunt instrument

that seeks to undermine the federal rulemaking process. It

allows Congress to overturn a recently finalized rule--major

or otherwise--through an expedited process called a

Resolution of Disapproval. In the Senate, a Resolution of

Disapproval requires only a simple majority vote, may

circumvent the committee process and cannot be filibustered.

If the resolution passes and is signed by the President, the

rule becomes void and the promulgating agency is prevented

from issuing a rule that is ``substantially the same'' in the

future without an act of Congress. By essentially voiding the

rulemaking process and mandating that substantially similar

rules not be pursued in the future, the CRA on the BLM's

Methane Rule wastes taxpayer money and defies the public

interest.

We request that you vote in opposition to this attack on

commonsense standards which limit wasted resources and

protect the American taxpayer, public health, and the

environment. Vote no on the BLM Methane CRA Resolution.

Sincerely,

Alaska Wilderness League, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy

Environment--Colorado Chapter, American Family Voices, Back

Country Horsemen of New Mexico, Bold Alliance, Californians

for Western Wilderness, Center for Biological Diversity,

Chesapeake Physicians for Social Responsibility, Citizens for

a Healthy Community, Clean Air Council, Clean Air Task Force,

Clean Water Action, Coalition for Clean Air, Colorado Farm &

Food Alliance, Conservation Colorado, Conservation Voters New

Mexico, Dakota Resource Council, Demand Progress, Earth

Action, Inc., Earthjustice, EarthRights International,

Earthworks, Elders Climate Action, Environmental Defense

Fund, Environmental Entrepreneurs, Environmental Integrity

Project, Environmental Law and Policy Center, Environmental

Working Groups.

Friends of the Earth, Grand Canyon Trust, Great Old Broads

for Wilderness, Gulf Coast Center for Law & Policy, Hair on

Fire Oregon, Hixon Center for Sustainable Environmental

Design at Harvey Mudd College, Idaho Organization of Resource

Councils, Institute for Science and Human Values, Interfaith

Power & Light, Iowa Environmental Council, League of

Conservation Voters, League of Women Voters of the United

States, Los Padres ForestWatch, Mayor of Lafayette, Colorado,

Montana Conservation Voters, Montana Environmental

Information Center--MEIC, National Association of Consumer

Advocates, National Center for Lesbian Rights, National

Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care, National Parks

Conservation Association, Natural Resources Council of Maine,

Natural Resources Defense Council, New Mexico Sportsmen,

NextGen Climate, Northern Plains Resource Council, NW Energy

Coalition, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Physicians

for Social Responsibility Maine Chapter.

Pipeline Safety Coalition, Powder River Basin Resource

Council, Public Citizen, Rachel Carson Council, San Juan

Citizens Alliance, Sierra Club, SLO CLEAN WATER.

ORG, Southern Environmental Law Center, Southern Utah

Wilderness Alliance, The Ohio Environmental Council, The

Wilderness Society, Union of Concerned Scientists, US Human

Rights Network, Voices for Progress, WE ACT for Environmental

Justice, Western Colorado Congress, Western Environmental Law

Center, Western Organization of Resource Councils, Wholly

H2O, WildEarth Guardians, Wilderness Workshop, Wyoming

Outdoor Council.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand the yeas and nays.

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

I rise today in opposition to this rule and the underlying resolutions.

The resolutions that this rule provides consideration for threaten our air and don't protect the American people. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that somehow repealing these rules will create jobs. It will actually destroy jobs, jobs that are associated with recapturing methane.

This is what a methane flare looks like. I drive by them in Colorado, and the potential for capturing, rather than flaring that methane, is important for the quality of our air and to reduce our emissions.

The House majority has made it their priority to instill fear and uncertainty in hardworking American families. People, who come here legally on visas who have lived here for many years, even small businesses, rather than focusing on jobs or having constructive conversations about immigration, are worried about their employees and, in some cases, even their owners being deported or not allowed back after conducting business overseas.

Republicans apparently would rather help shield large corporations from transparency, eliminate regulations that protect families from water and air pollution, and require companies to follow wage rules.

To add to this uncertainty and fear, President Trump has signed an executive order already that bans refugees and citizens from predominantly Muslim countries. Well, America is a nation of immigrants--those who fled political and religious persecution, violence in their home countries, and those seeking to build a family in a country that values freedom and upholds civil rights.

Our new President has decided that the best use of taxpayer money is to build a wall on our southern border. Our President has used his first 2 weeks in office to generate fear and uncertainty among vulnerable households who may lose their health insurance rather than create jobs and improve our economy. The new President has even limited the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to communicate with the public about things like methane flaring.

The two Congressional Review Act resolutions we are discussing today--like the previous ones that, I should point out, do not follow regular order--they didn't receive any hearings in this Congress. They were a closed rule with no amendments allowed. I offered two amendments to the methane rule amendment. Neither were allowed to even be debated on this floor of this House, no less adopted.

I would like to quote from Speaker Ryan when he took the gavel in October of 2015. He said: ``We need to let every member contribute--not once they have earned their stripes, but right now.'' In a further quote, Speaker Ryan said: ``The committees should retake the lead in drafting all major legislation. If you know the issue, you should write the bill. Open up the process.''

``In other words, we need to return to regular order.''

Yet, here we are again with two CRAs that did not come through regular order, did not have a hearing with no opportunity for Members on either side of the aisle, Democrats or Republicans, with good ideas to make these pieces of legislation any better. Apparently, Speaker Ryan's commitment doesn't apply to CRAs or issues that keep our air and water clean or protect workers.

I would like to ask that Speaker Ryan explain to his colleagues how he is sticking to his commitment of regular order and to clarify what that means.

Not one amendment was allowed to be heard on the floor on either of these bills. This is a closed rule, including two of mine.

First, let's talk about the methane waste rule. It is very important to my constituents where fracking has worsened the quality of the air and upset neighborhoods across my district in Colorado.

The first amendment offered in the Rules Committee was to the methane waste rule, and it would have added Bureau of Land Management scientific findings. It would offer transparency and truth to this Congressional Review Act, providing facts about methane, methane waste, and why it is necessary for this rule to be moved forward. Without this rule, we would be seeing a lot more of this in areas like my district and my State.

In the last few weeks, a war on science has been begun by this administration. If we support facts, then we should let facts speak for themselves and be as objective as possible. We should have allowed that amendment which would have listed the scientific truths around methane and this rule.

Scientific facts are clear. The current rule would supply energy for up to 740,000 more households per year. Rather than burn that methane into the atmosphere, we can actually provide energy for 740,000 more households; and that methane is 25 times more dangerous and potent as carbon dioxide for worsening the impact of global warming.

Even if you want to ignore the energy impact of helping more Americans have power or the climate impacts of increasing climate change, if we look at this rule from a jobs perspective, this CRA would destroy American jobs.

I would like to explain how this methane waste CRA rule will affect the jobs of thousands of employees of the more than 70 companies headquartered in the U.S. that provide services and equipment to identify and capture natural gas and methane leaking from pipelines, processing equipment, and wells, including many in my home State of Colorado. This rule directly threatens the livelihood of many businesses and employees in my home State.

If, for some strange reason, the job creation argument isn't enough for you, how about the hundreds of millions of dollars American taxpayers would collect over the next decade from additional royalties?

Oil and gas companies are required to pay for the methane they collect and sell from public lands, and the more that is captured rather than burned off, the better not only for the companies and the employees, but also for taxpayers as we try to reduce our budget deficit.

An estimated $140 million in royalties over the next decade would be lost if this CRA moves forward. That is $140 million more in deficit spending that this rule signifies if it were to pass, and

that is why it is opposed by Taxpayers for Common Sense and most other fiscally conservative groups.

Again, if job creation, science, and taxpayer savings aren't enough, how about the cancer-causing impacts, carcinogenic effects, of oil and gas drilling?

Stacy Lambright lives in Thornton, Colorado, near my district with her husband, Eric, and her two kids, Jack and Molly. Stacy became a community activist and a member of Moms Clean Air Force after she found out her neighborhood park frequented by children and families was directly next to a leaking oil and gas fracking well.

Stacy and her family have been living in the neighborhood for over 14 years, and they have started to experience health concerns after oil and gas drillers moved in. Since 2015, Stacy's been documenting an unusual amount of nosebleeds in her family. Just as recently as Monday, her daughter had a nosebleed, while her son had six nosebleeds last month, something they never had before. And Stacy's husband's asthma has significantly increased.

They have lived in the neighborhood for 14 years and only recently, since the drilling occurred, have they had these health impacts. There have been no changes in their home or surrounding neighborhood other than the increased amount of fracking and oil and gas wells and leaks, documented leaks, to existing wells.

This methane rule further threatens the health of constituents as we gather additional data, and that is why Stacy is advocating for stronger legislation and better management practices, not worse management practices, with regard to existing oil and gas wells.

The safety and health of Stacy's family should be a top priority for Congress, but it appears, instead, the Republicans' top priority in this resolution is bringing us back to a time when our water is polluted, our skies are smoggy, and health issues from dirty air are a burden for families.

I know it has been argued--we probably will again--that oil and gas companies are fixing and capping leaks on their own, but that is false. There is a massive amount of gas leaked every day, and these companies have not reduced methane emissions from the field one bit. Again, absent this rule, we will see more of this kind of activity, not less.

Another argument is that infrastructure, like pipelines, is important to prevent methane flaring. And of course that is true, but a GAO report says that only 9 percent of venting and flaring is due to the lack of infrastructure, so it is only a small part of the overall issue.

And, by the way, this rule doesn't block or in any way impede any new infrastructure projects, and more infrastructure alone clearly won't solve the problem of leaking wells and flaring methane.

The issue of leaking methane, in particular, is partially addressed by this rule, which, by the way, doesn't go far enough. However, what they wrote has been proven to work in creating jobs and cleaning up our air.

In Colorado, we have a methane rule that, frankly, this rule is largely based on, and I know it has worked in Colorado. And while we need to do a lot better in my home State, at least some level of baseline can work for the whole country.

Oil production on Federal lands went up 28 percent between 2010 and 2015 under the Obama administration. There is no question that BLM has and still has authority to regulate methane. It is a waste of taxpayer money, a misuse of our public lands to do anything other than to reduce our methane emissions.

Just as an aside, the benefits of this rule include increased job creation, cleaner air, healthier families, and the climate.

BLM was extraordinarily conscientious when drafting this rule. They held eight public forums. They extended the comment period for 75 days. Over 300,000 public comments were collected and addressed. The BLM's methane rule was done out in the open with public input as opposed to, by the way, this process, which was done behind closed doors, without a public hearing, and didn't even have a committee hearing.

It doesn't make sense to use the CRA to repeal this BLM methane rule. This BLM methane rule creates jobs, protects our families, saves taxpayer money, and reduces our budget deficit.

The second amendment I offered got to the heart of the problem with CRAs in general. Regardless of the rules that they are impacting, they are a reckless, blunt tool, and they are not the right instrument for honest, thoughtful legislating.

If Congress has a problem with the authority under which the methane rule was issued, we should amend the statutory authority of the agency, not use a congressional resolution of disapproval.

My other amendment simply said that the agency has the right and authority to write a rule impacting this issue which, otherwise, the CRA could effectively prevent; and due to that uncertainty, passing the CRA creates even more uncertainty for the industry.

As the Denver Post, a newspaper that has endorsed dozens of Republicans over the last few years, said in regards to this methane waste rule: ``Congress is getting ready to use an ax where it needs a scalpel.''

The Congressional Review Act is one of the most ridiculous tools to be used by Congress, and, regardless of whether you disagree or agree with the policy, the better way to approach it would be to amend the statutory authority of the agency to make it clear whether they have the authority to issue this kind of rule and under what conditions.

While we may disagree on that, and we may be able to offer and bring to the floor amendments regarding agency authority, that is the appropriate venue for this discussion.

Let's move on to the other bill under this rule, the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces bill. My Republican colleagues continue to refer to this order as a problematic order. Unfortunately, it is another attempt to mislead the American people. This is a tactic the Republican elite have called ``providing alternative facts.''

The rule under CRA today comes from the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces executive order, and it is sorely needed legislation. What this rule says is, if you are a company that consistently breaks the law, without regard for your workplace, workers, taxpayers, or the community, you should not receive millions of dollars in taxpayer contracts.

It makes common sense to me. If you are abusing workers, have engaged in tax fraud, why would we want to contract with you with our taxpayer dollars?

Companies that cut corners in safety or fair pay, dozens of other areas, shouldn't get to compete for our taxpayer money against good actors and companies that play by the rules. Everybody needs to start from a level playing field.

Now, to be clear, there are only a few bad actors. The vast majority of companies have no issue at all with this rule. But unscrupulous actors who have ignored the law, violated the law, cut corners, should not be rewarded; and, to this day, there are a few bad actors that continue to receive billions of dollars of your taxpayer money in Federal contracts.

In 2010, a GAO report proved that there was a problem. GAO investigated 15 Federal contractors cited for violating hundreds of Federal labor laws enforced by the Department of Labor, OSHA, and the National Labor Relations Board. The Federal Government awarded these 15 Federal contractors over $6 billion in government contract obligations, your money going to known violators in 2009 alone.

How about that for waste, fraud, and abuse?

Now, look, I don't know about my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but fiscal responsibility is core to my beliefs as a Member of Congress. That is why I am a proud cosponsor of an amendment to require a balanced budget.

I believe in the value of hard work and personal responsibility. If we know a company is cutting corners, taking the easy way out, and avoiding the responsibility of the law, why would we reward them with your money?

Organizations throughout the country, representing a diverse group of stakeholders, agree. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Service Employees International Union

all join me in opposition to this Congressional Review Act. They recognize the value of hard work. They don't support companies who cheat. I don't know why my Republicans colleagues do.

This rule modernizes an antiquated system. Right now it is virtually impossible for procurement officials to know if company A has had any violations when they are up against company B for a contract. If company A has been cheating workers out of overtime and that allows them to underbid Company B, they shouldn't get the contract and be rewarded for violating the law.

This executive order will increase coordination, simplification, access to information, and streamline the system.

This executive order does not set up any way for companies to be banned or disbarred. That process has always existed and will still exist alongside this as a separate, independent process. In fact, what this process does is it provides a remedial path for companies to right the ship, to get right with the law, to be eligible, once again, for Federal contracts.

A simple or rare mistake should, of course, not bar a company from participating in the Federal recruitment process. Instead, companies with repeated and excessive transgressions should be helped to follow the law and create a better workplace and be rewarded to be better stewards of taxpayers dollars.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

I am prepared to close if the gentleman doesn't have any remaining speakers.

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

First of all, the gentleman from Oklahoma referenced that these have been the subject of hearings. I would point out that there are over 50 new Members of this body who were not part of the last Congress who have not had a chance to look at it. And there has been time.

They could have had hearings and markups last week or the week before

prior to these bills coming to the floor. I just came from a hearing in one my committees today. So they certainly could have been done consistent with the timeline, had that been the desire.

But, again, the better approach, the correct approach, would be to amend or change the authorities of the authorizing agency for these rules, rather than use the CRA process.

Mr. Speaker, President Trump's immoral and unconstitutional executive order banning Syrian refugees and suspending immigration from many countries is an attack on our core American values as a nation of law and a nation of immigrants.

This callous indifference of human suffering not only has tarnished and hurt our image abroad but harmed our national security by alienating allies and providing terrorist groups with new recruiting tools.

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Lofgren's bill to overturn and defund this dangerous executive order.

Let me be perfectly clear for people watching what this vote means. A ``no'' vote on the previous question gives us the opportunity to overturn this order and bring up Representative Lofgren's bill. A ``yes'' vote means the House will continue to do nothing to stop President Trump's executive action and, instead, choose with allowing more methane to be spewed into the atmosphere.

This will be the third such vote the House takes this week, and, so far, every vote cast by a Republican Member in Congress has been in favor of turning a blind eye to President Trump's unconstitutional and dangerous order.

The American people should take notice and insist that their elected Representatives vote ``no'' and reject this administration's disgraceful policy.

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

The fact that these CRA proposals that we have before us have not gone through any sort of special order, regular order; the fact that CRAs are cumbersome and reckless tools; and the fact that all they do is take away protections from our air and from our workers should make it easy for every Member of this body to join me in voting ``no'' on this rule and on the underlying bills.

We should be keeping regulations and standards predictable that put Americans at the top of our priority list, not oil and gas companies, and not companies that are bad actors and violate our law by refusing to pay overtime to their workers.

We should value clean air, and we should value companies that play by the rules. We should value regulations that protect our taxpayer dollars rather than increase our deficit by $140 million. We can do all of these things by simply defeating this rule and defeating the underlying bills.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the rule, and ``no'' on the underlying bills.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. President, I come to speak against the Congressional Review Act resolution to overrun an important rule that has been put in place to protect the American taxpayer and to protect the health of American citizens.

For almost 100 years, the Federal Government has regulated undue waste in oil and gas fields. The story of oil and gas waste is as old as the story of oil and gas.

Early oil gushers, like Spindletop in Texas, revealed two things about oil as an emerging source of energy: First, there was a huge amount of it. Second, without rules in place, it could be easily wasted. That is why, way back in 1915, Attorney General Thomas Gregory issued a report to the public about this issue. Gregory wrote that the law at the time allowed oil companies to ``occupy and operate any number of tracts of public oil land without restraint upon the quantities of oil produced or the methods of production and

without rendering to the . . . government anything in return.'' One can imagine that concern. Gregory went on to point out that ``the incentives to speculative occupation, negligent and wasteful operation, and excess production become obvious.''

Some of my colleagues who are not on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee may not be familiar with the law Congress passed after Attorney General Gregory put his finger on the waste problem. The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 established our modern leasing program for oil and natural gas. More than anything else, the leasing act enshrined the principle that the public should benefit from mineral production on public lands. This seems like a no-brainer today, but it took over a decade of debate to pass the leasing act.

One of the main parts of the leasing act was a requirement to avoid wasting oil and gas. There are many environmental reasons to avoid wasting this resource, but let's be clear: It was dollar signs that led to the waste provision. Overproduction would glut the market and damage the oil reserves, and wasted oil provided no return to the owners--the taxpayers.

The leasing act is still the law, and the law says that oil and gas operators must ``use all reasonable precautions to prevent waste of oil or gas developed in the land.'' The law says that Federal leases must include ``a provision that such rules . . . for the prevention of undue waste as may be prescribed by [the] Secretary shall be observed.'' The BLM's methane rule is entirely in keeping with that history. The rule says that the outdated 1979 version of this rule needed to be updated.

The rule was put in place before the fracking took place that revolutionized the industry, before the shale plays opened, and before infrared imaging became commonplace. What has not changed since 1920 is that oil and gas companies cannot waste public resources on public lands.

When equipment is leaky or old, oil and gas producers vent natural gas directly to the sky. If they do capture the gas but have nowhere to send it, the gas just gets burned on site. This venting and flaring causes a big problem. This photograph shows that actual problem happening.

I am sure there are many citizens across the United States who have witnessed this and have been concerned about what pollutants might be entering the atmosphere. The hazardous health impacts of this are tremendous--benzene, which causes cancer--and I will talk more about that in a minute.

The amount of venting that is happening is enough gas to supply 6.2 million American households for a year. According to more recent research, even higher estimates are coming in. That is enough gas to supply every home in the interior West--Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico--with gas left over for the Dakotas. Every home. The amount of gas we waste every single year on Federal lands would be enough to supply Tennessee forever, and there could be some left over for West Virginia.

On Federal lands, operators have more than doubled how much gas they have flared and wasted between 2009 and today, and that is the practice we are trying to stop. Under the old 1979 rule, operators had to apply to BLM every time they wanted to vent or flare. In practice, BLM, because they did not have a new rule in place, basically just had a ``yes'' or ``no'' answer. In 2014, the Bureau of Land Management received 25 times more applications to vent or flare than in 2005.

What was happening was that we as a Federal Government were failing in our responding and updating the act to make sure producers were living up to the intent of that earlier law, so government watchdogs got on the issue and started calling for a solution.

The Government Accountability Office and the Interior Department's inspector general concluded that the Bureau of Land Management needed to change these rules. The Government Accountability Office concluded in 2010 that about 40 percent of wasted natural gas on Federal leases could be economically captured with existing technology.

Some States had already taken action into their own hands. In Colorado, the State passed a strong venting and leak detection regulation, which really became the model for the national Bureau of Land Management, and oil and gas production has since increased.

There was a notion that in making sure that waste was not promulgated--that it somehow was going to slow down the industry, but it has been just the opposite. In fact, some of my colleagues and some ranchers and others in these areas have talked about how the United States should lead the way on new technology to stop the leakage and to prevent these flarings as a way for the industry to show technology leadership.

Also, in North Dakota, a Republican administration passed flaring restrictions after years of there being uncontrolled flaring in the Bakken. States took action, and various watchdog groups and investigators here in Washington said the Bureau of Land Management needed to act. The BLM finally acted, and its final rule is similar to the North Dakota approach. So States have already been leaders on this methane issue. But this patchwork of State rules is not what we need; we need a Federal baseline.

It is bad enough that wasted natural gas will never have an economic use. Making the issue worse is that every cubic foot that is vented or flared is another cubic foot we have to produce somewhere else. What does that mean for our wallets? Research by ICF International shows that $330 million of natural gas is wasted intentionally on Federal lands every year. Over time, the public is losing billions of dollars. Over a decade, the lost royalties that have been calculated by the Government Accountability Office on wasted gas will add up to $230 million. While the final amount, of course, depends on the price of natural gas, we cannot afford to give up this revenue.

A vote for disapproving the resolution will let the oil and gas industry roll back the clock to 1979. This resolution lets people continue avoiding giving the taxpayers their fair share. It is another example of special interests trumping the public interest.

Even worse than the taxpayer issue, though, is that wasted natural gas harms public health. That is why those States took action. One of the most prevailing problems on this issue is in the Four Corners States, and my colleague from New Mexico will be talking about this shortly.

When one looks at the entire United States on a map that shows the amount of waste of flaring, one can see all of this yellow coloring in the Midwest--in Ohio--and in other States, but one can see the hotspot in the Four Corners area. The Four Corners States have tried to take action--places like Colorado and New Mexico, with, obviously, Arizona and Utah being affected--because wasted natural gas basically releases a volatile organic compound. It creates ozone and smog. It also can make people sick. This pollution worsens asthma, emphysema, and increases the risk of premature death. It releases toxins, like benzene, that cause cancer. And the methane, the main constituent of the natural gas, is 25 times more powerful at trapping heat than carbon dioxide.

That is why a recent analysis by the Clean Air Task Force found that over 9 million people are exposed to these dangerous levels of air pollution from oil and gas production. That is why my colleague Senator Bennet of Colorado has been such an outspoken advocate of keeping this rule in place. It is because that corner of Colorado has faced so many impacts that they want to make sure their citizens are protected.

With the rolling back of this Federal rule, basically what one would be saying is that it is OK to continue this level of pollution--an anathema to what the people of Colorado have been asking for.

Oil and gas pollution can make rural areas seem like the middle of a city. A few years ago, NASA scientists discovered a massive cloud of methane over the Four Corners region. This is the highest concentration of methane in the Nation. After aerial surveys, NASA found that over half of the methane is from natural gas equipment, including tanks, wells, pipelines, and processing plants. The ozone pollution in the Four Corners is almost as bad on some days as in the city of Los Angeles--a city with 300 times as many people.

As bad as methane waste is on Federal land, this rule only targets 10 percent of that wasted by the oil and gas industry because we are targeting Federal land. It only affects a small minority of the oil and gas production. Ninety-five percent of that production is in other areas. But this rule is important to put in place because we cannot ignore the impacts on pollution, and we cannot ignore the costs to our Federal lands.

The Bureau of Land Management compared the costs and benefits of this rule without factoring in the reductions in ozone, particulate matter, or smog, and the BLM ignored the value of reducing carcinogens. We know that this particular conservative analysis shows a net benefit of between $46 million and $204 million each year. This makes economic sense to implement.

Under the very obsolete 1979 regulation that the methane rule replaces, oil and gas operators had to apply to the BLM whenever they wanted to vent or flare natural gas. The old rules also had no specific equipment requirements in place.

As I said earlier, the world has changed dramatically since 1979 when it comes to oil and gas production. The new rule takes commonsense approaches to stepping up our attempts to reduce this waste and prohibit the venting, except in emergencies and in some circumstances. They estimate that it will cut the venting by 35 percent. It also sets capture targets for flaring, allowing operators flexibility on how to meet those targets. The BLM estimates they will reduce flaring by 49 percent.

The rule requires operators to inspect their wells and their equipment. People may have heard unbelievable stories from California about a huge methane leakage that caused unbelievable amounts of damage. We know that we want the best equipment, that we want the best detection, and that we want a strong rule in place to stop wasting this natural gas, give the taxpayers a fair deal, and protect the American people from harmful levels of pollution. That is why we want this rule to stay in place.

With America's increased natural gas production, now is not the time to take a very solid rule off the books--a rule that protects the American people. The technology to conduct these inspections already exists. Infrared imaging and other technology has been sold commercially for decades. What we are really saying is that people just do not want to spend the money to implement them.

Fourth, the rule requires operators to replace leaky equipment, like the pneumatic controllers and pumps, and it is trying to make sure that we eliminate the methane waste.

So the final rule is in step with what the Government Accountability Office told us 7 years ago--that about 40 percent of the waste can be captured economically. BLM took those best practices and State examples, as I mentioned, including North Dakota and Colorado, and implemented a new rule.

It includes Colorado's venting and inspection and retrofitting requirements, and regulation 7. It includes North Dakota's capture targets for flared gas in it, and it includes Wyoming's venting and inspection requirements in the Upper Green River Basin.

Not only did the Bureau of Land Management adopt the best practices of States, but it also included a variance provision in the final rule. Any State or Tribe with equally effective regulation in place can minimize their methane waste and can apply for a variance from the Department of the Interior. There is a lot of flexibility there, I would say, for States that are trying to lead the way. But based on this careful approach, the final rule and its benefits are estimated, as I said earlier, to be $204 million a year.

So the public in these States that are most affected certainly want this rule. As more Americans understand the level of natural gas production and the wasteful venting that continues to take place, they want this rule in place as well.

Passing the resolution just after a few hours of debate and trying to undermine this rule would go against the 330,000 public comments that were collected during the process of establishing this rule. So we certainly don't want to overturn what was a very long and elaborate process to put this very important rule in place.

Proposing more waste is not going to solve our economic challenges. Proposing more pollution is not a solution. We know that in the most recent annual poll by Colorado College, western voters said that 81 percent of them supported making sure that the Bureau of Land Management had strong methane rules. My colleagues appear not to understand how much the public wants to get this implemented. I hope my colleagues will continue to support the effort to turn down the Congressional Review Act resolution and instead keep this very, very important public health and economic taxpayer solution on the books.

As Mark Boling, an executive with Southwestern Energy, a major natural gas producer, said, this resolution and trying to turn back the rule is ``a huge mistake.'' He pointed out that it could have ``unintended consequences for oil and gas technology.''

So I want to make sure this rule stays in place. Let's keep a strong rule on the books, as I said, for the health of the American people and to make sure that taxpayers get a fair deal with these companies that are producing on Federal lands.

I thank the Chair.

I yield to my colleague from New Mexico, who has been outspoken on this issue in making sure that Congress addresses the flaring and leakage of natural gas.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 74 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 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 have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of two important measures, which would overturn two significant onerous regulations finalized in the waning days of the Obama administration.

First, the resolution provides for the consideration of H.J. Res. 36, providing for congressional disapproval of the so-called BLM methane rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee and provides for a motion to recommit.

In addition, the resolution provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 37, providing for congressional disapproval of the so-called blacklisting rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and provides for a motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, burdensome regulations are crippling our businesses. The Obama administration finalized 38 major rules between election day and inauguration day. It is estimated those rules will cost our economy $41.2 billion. Sadly, this was just par for the course with the previous administration. In 2016, the Obama administration finalized over 400 regulations at a cost of over $160 billion to the economy. Over the entire Obama Presidency, over 3,000 regulations, at a cost of $873.6 billion, were finalized.

I am heartened by President Trump's regulatory freeze, which has been estimated to save over $180 billion in regulatory costs, followed by his executive order which aims to revoke two regulations for every new regulation put forward.

Specifically, H.J. Res. 36 overturns the BLM methane rule. The rule is a significant regulatory overreach by the Bureau of Land Management. Under the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate methane emissions, which it currently does. Instead, the BLM has decided to also assert authority over methane in a way that is both duplicative and unnecessary, yet has significant negative impact on jobs, energy production, and Federal, State, and local revenues.

Mr. Speaker, this is a regulation in search of a problem. According to a 2015 EPA study, methane emissions from both natural gas systems and crude oil production have fallen by significant margin, even while oil and natural gas production have exploded. The BLM flaring rule is both costly and unnecessary.

The second rule considered by this resolution is similarly a solution in search of a problem. For decades, the Federal Government has had a suspension and debarment process in place to deny Federal contracts to bad actors who violate basic worker protections. However, President Obama signed an executive order directing various agencies to add another layer of bureaucracy onto the Federal procurement system. Prior to awarding a contract, each agency's contracting officer and a newly created labor compliance adviser will be required to review both violations and alleged violations to determine whether an employer should be awarded a Federal contract. Even the courts have agreed this is overreach. In October of 2016, a Federal district judge blocked enforcement of these rules, citing concerns with the violation of due process rights and executive overreach.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, it is critical that we prevent implementation of these rules which are unnecessary and add even more regulatory burdens to our struggling businesses and anemic economy.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Not surprisingly, my friend and I have a number of disagreements on the wisdom of getting rid of these particular regulations. We do agree on the importance of actually capturing methane gases. Frankly, my friend is right. That is a profitable thing, and most companies try to do it on their own.

We do, frankly, need more infrastructure in this area, no question about that. The BLM has been less than cooperative in allowing that infrastructure to be built on Federal land, and that has made this problem more difficult than it needs to be.

But it is important to recognize, overall, the amount of methane gas that actually escapes has gone down steadily and, frankly, dramatically, even as production has moved up. So additional regulation is unlikely to change that process. It may actually complicate it.

In terms of where the appropriate authority lies, again, I would just remind my friend, as he knows, the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to do this. So if it felt like it needed it, it could.

The BLM has actually moved into a new area beyond its traditional jurisdiction because it does not have authority, under the Clean Air Act, to draft these kind of rules and regulations. The Clean Air Act, again, is already in place. The EPA has the authority. If we need to do something, let's do it.

In terms of the disbarment procedure for contractors, what we have is already awfully robust. Almost 2,000 firms, or on 2,000 occasions, companies were disbarred in 2015 from Federal contracting work. It was the same in 2014. So there is something in place. We don't need additional regulatory expense, additional people working for the government. We can rely on the procedures we already have.

My friend is concerned about the lack of hearings. I would remind him, while we haven't had hearings on these items in this Congress, we certainly did on both of them in the last Congress, in some cases, multiple hearings. There is not any need to rehash and go over the same ground, in my view.

Finally, in terms of just the process itself, the Congressional Review Act actually limits the form in which these sorts of things can be brought forward. If amendments are made in order, frankly, the item loses its privilege in the United States Senate, which, obviously, changes the speed at which you can move and perhaps even the number of votes that are required to actually move forward.

So we think, again, these are items that have been explored, looked at, debated. The evidence is pretty clear. We think it is important to move quickly in these areas, and I would urge the body to do so. Adopt the rule. Support the underlying legislation.

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

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

I just want to make a couple of good points. Remember, my friends, disbarment is already a very common procedure. It was invoked over 2,000 times. So having another regulatory hurdle and hoop to jump through, just simply isn't necessary.

Again, these regulations were, frankly, generated in the final waning months of the Obama administration. They haven't been in action, and there is sort of a regulatory fit. It is not, by the way, unusual for just the last administration. All administrations have this tendency near the end, and that is one of the reasons why we have the Congressional Review Act in the first place, so that when administrations, in their waning days, decide they want to leave difficult situations or push through things that they didn't see fit to do over an 8-year period, Congress can expeditiously make sure that those regulations aren't put in place and businesses are forced to begin to comply with them.

As I pointed out in my opening remarks, the regulations released by the last administration--over 3,000 of them in an 8-year period--cost the economy over $870 billion. The regulations that were issued between election day and Inauguration Day cost the economy over $40 billion. That is real money. That is real investment that could go elsewhere and could hire people.

So I would think that these, along with the other Congressional Review Act bills that will be coming forward, and have already come forward, will actually give the economy a much-needed shot in the arm, will help stimulate job creation and movement, and we have a timeframe in which we have to operate.

So if we actually followed all of the procedures my friend suggested, many of these regulations, frankly, would never get reviewed before they went on the books.

So it is better to act quickly. I think it is better for American business.

Again, I urge the support of the rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am certainly prepared to close.

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

I want to thank my friend. As always, he is always thoughtful, always a good person to hold a debate and a conversation with.

On this one, we simply disagree. My friend referenced some of the ``conservative groups'' that are supporting the maintenance of the flaring rule, the BLM.

Just for the record, I want to add some that I am actually more familiar with: the Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens Against Government Waste, Americans for Prosperity, and Taxpayers Protection Alliance. All of those are in favor of the repeal of this regulation, and all of them think it will actually save businesses money and increase activity as opposed to the regulation which we think actually discourages economic activity.

Again, these are regulations--in both cases, they were adopted in the final waning days of the administration. These are things that Congress had serious doubts against, but, obviously, couldn't override an administration when they were in office.

The Congressional Review Act itself is done, so we can do this sort of exercise after an administration leaves, and actually go back and undo some of the damage that I think is routinely done by both parties in their waning days, when they would actually be better off to just simply let the new people get into their jobs and actually go about their business.

We have appropriate regulatory authority in both of these areas. Again, the Environmental Protection Agency has the power under the Clean Air Act to issue whatever regulations it cares to on methane. And here, frankly, we ought to pat business on the back because, as we have increased production of both oil and natural gas, methane has consistently gone down dramatically and steadily over the years.

I suspect that process will continue with or without the regulation of the Federal Government because, quite frankly, it makes good business sense. And, quite frankly, most people in private business want to be good stewards to the environment. They are not out to try and damage our air or our water.

The same thing is true in terms of bad actors--and there certainly are some bad actors--that engage in activities that are inappropriate for Federal contractors who violate the law. That is why, under current law, almost 2,000 companies were disbarred in 2015; a similar number in 2014.

So, again, what we have in place appears to be working. Why we would create an additional hurdle, hire additional people, and force companies to do additional paperwork is beyond me. I don't think it is the wise thing to do; I don't think it is the necessary thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to encourage all Members to support the rule.

H.J. Res. 36 and H.J. Res. 37 both undo regulations that should never have been made in the first place. By preventing the implementation of these onerous, duplicative regulations, we will relieve the burdens faced by American small business.

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