H.Res. 74

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. 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.

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

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

Before I address the disapproval resolution, I just want to acknowledge the important role Federal contractors have in meeting the needs of the Federal Government. Employment and critical services in many districts, including my own, are heavily reliant on Federal contractors, including those who serve a critical role for our Nation, supporting the needs of the military, the Coast Guard, Homeland Security, and many others.

That said, it is imperative that contractors are bidding on a level playing field when they compete for contracts. Unfortunately, this resolution would effectively reward contractors who cut corners, endanger the rights of their workers, and, studies show, compromise quality.

Although most Federal contractors obey labor laws, studies by the GAO, the Senate HELP Committee, and others document that Federal contractors with histories of serious, willful, and repeated violations of labor employment and nondiscrimination laws continue to be rewarded with Federal contracts.

For context, it is important to know that contracting rules already require agencies to determine whether or not a prospective contractor is responsible before awarding a contract. Amongst the criteria considered is whether or not the contractor has ``a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics,'' and ``a satisfactory performance record.''

As previous speakers have noted, violations can already be considered. However, contracting officers don't have access to a list of those violations until this rule is issued, nor are contracting officers required to review a bidder's labor violations history.

The rule implementing the executive order on Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces does not add any extra layers of review. Rather, it would fill that data gap by requiring contractors to disclose whether they have violations of 14 longstanding labor laws, including the Fair Labor Standards Act, OSHA, Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act, and nondiscrimination laws.

It only applies to contracts over $500,000, so we are not talking about mom-and-pop operations. But if listing those violations of fair pay and safe workplace laws constitutes an administrative burden, more the reason to make them be listed.

They are to be disclosed. And although we have heard about allegations, and although some violations may not be final, the only thing that has to be disclosed are those violations for which there has been an agency determination. That is, an allegation is made, it is investigated, and the company has been found to be in violation. It may be on appeal or whatnot, but there has at least been an agency determination of guilt.

The rule requires contracting officers to focus on whether such violations are serious, repeated, willful or pervasive. The rule helps bring those contractors with a history of violations into compliance by way of labor compliance agreements so they can continue to be considered for contracting opportunities while they improve their records.

Some have mislabeled this rule as the ``blacklisting rule,'' but this suggestion and characterization ignores the rules' meaningful compliance provision. The reality is that this rule would, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, encourage agency contract officials to push bidders with serious labor law violations ``to enter into labor compliance agreements'' rather than to disbar or suspend them.

I want to point out that a coalition of 20,000 construction contractors submitted testimony to the Small Business Committee where they wrote: ``Employers--primes and subs have more rights, remedies and redress for non-responsibility determinations based on lack of integrity or business ethics under the executive order than the current Federal Acquisition Regulation procedures specifically provide.''

Now, this testimony suggests that the rules are far more contractor- friendly than the detractors have characterized.

It would be premature to dismantle this rule because it hasn't even been put into effect because it has been under a court injunction. Further, repealing the rule under the CRA would bar future consideration of substantially similar rules unless Congress enacts subsequent enabling legislation.

So the bottom line is that there are winners and there are losers if this legislation passes. The winners, if this legislation passes, would be companies who willfully, and repeatedly, and pervasively violate labor laws. The winners would be the contractors who cut corners and gain an unfair competitive advantage over law-abiding contractors.

The losers will be workers who are employed by Federal contractors. They will be more susceptible to wage theft, unfair working conditions, and unsafe workplaces run by unscrupulous contractors. Losers will be the law-abiding contractors who lose contracts because they abide by the laws protecting their workers.

This is why the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule enjoys support from a widespread number of businesses, veterans, civil rights, and labor organizations from the Easterseals to Paralyzed Veterans of America, to the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. That is why I oppose this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), the vice ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, can you advise both sides how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to restate a couple of provisions.

One is this underlying regulation only applies to contracts in excess of $500,000. As previously stated, this information that is to be disclosed can already be considered in contracting. This regulation makes it available so it can be considered.

It is not just allegations. We are talking about agency determinations after an investigation.

Now, the regulation requires consideration of the fact of whether or not a determination is final or whether it is on appeal. That is to be considered. But not all violations in the fullest of time are to be considered at all. Only those that are serious, repeated, willful, or pervasive violations of fair pay and safe workplace violations are to be considered.

And so for the people who are not blacklisted, the guilty are encouraged to participate in labor compliance agreements so they can continue to receive contracts while they improve their records.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, let us recall who the winners and losers are if this resolution of disapproval passes. The winners will be the unscrupulous contractors who cut corners and compromise the safety of their workers. The losers will be the workers, who are the most susceptible to wage theft and unfair working conditions, and the law- abiding contractors who face unfair competition.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record three letters: one from The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, another from the American Industrial Hygiene Association, and, finally, one from a coalition of 134 business, labor, and civil society groups which stand in opposition to this resolution of disapproval.

The Leadership Conference on

Civil and Human Rights,

Washington, DC, January 31, 2017.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker of the House,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi: On behalf of

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a

coalition charged by its diverse membership of more than 200

national organizations to promote and protect the civil and

human rights of all persons in the United States, we write in

strong opposition to the use of the Congressional Review Act

(CRA) to repeal the regulations implementing the Fair Pay and

Safe Workplaces Executive Order.

The Fair Pay regulations represent a much-needed step

forward in ensuring that the federal contractor community is

providing safe and fair workplaces for employees by

encouraging compliance with federal labor and civil rights

laws, and prohibiting the use of mandatory arbitration of

certain disputes.

Employers that have the privilege of doing business with

the federal government also have a responsibility to abide by

the law. The Fair Pay regulations are crucial because they

help ensure that federal contractors behave responsibly and

ethically with respect to labor standards and civil rights

laws. They also encourage companies applying for federal

contracts to comply with federal civil rights laws such as

the Fair Labor Standards Act (which includes the Equal Pay

Act), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with

Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Occupational Safety and

Health Act, and their state law equivalents. The Executive

Order also bans contractors from forcing employees to

arbitrate claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as

well as claims of sexual harassment and sexual assault.

We urge you to oppose any attempts to roll back the

protections that stem from the Executive Order on Fair Pay

and Safe Workplaces. The Order and implementing regulations

provide strong protections against the federal government

contracting with employers that routinely engage in

discrimination based on race, sex, age, or disability,

violate workplace health and safety protections, withhold

wages, or commit other labor violations. If you have any

questions, please feel free to contact June Zeitlin, Director

of Human Rights Policy.

Sincerely,

Wade Henderson,

President & CEO.

Nancy Zirkin,

Executive Vice President.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution of disapproval.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 74, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 36) 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'', and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.J. Res. 36.

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

For the last decade, there has been an ongoing renaissance in the United States in energy production. It has changed our geopolitics; our economy has been strengthened; our security has been enhanced; and there have been thousands of new, good-paying jobs that have been created from it. This energy boom, according to a 2015 survey, has saved the American family around $1,000 a year, and this growth of the last decade has come in spite of consistent anti-energy policies of the previous administration's. It has especially hit those of us in the West very hard--those who are public land States in the West--who use our resources to fund our infrastructure and to pay for our schools and our essential government services.

This rule, which is allegedly to help the environment, actually is designed to stop production; therefore, it becomes a prime candidate for a repeal under the Congressional Review Act, which was passed into law in 1996 and signed by President Clinton. At that time, Clinton said that this was a great way for Congress to be held accountable, and it truly is in that any rule is subject to this rule if it has one of three criteria: one, excessive costs; two, it was done beyond the particular agency's statutory authority; or, three, it is duplicative or unnecessary or redundant. With this particular rule, we have the trifecta because it is not just one of those criteria--it offends all of those criteria.

The Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency, in its working with States, the authority to develop issues and regulations that address air quality. The Bureau of Land Management does not, and they are the ones who instituted this particular rule. In fact, the contortions the BLM went through to say they have the legal authority is almost embarrassing. The contortions they went through would qualify for an opening act on the Las Vegas Strip. Instead, it reminds us of when the BLM came up with the hydraulic fracturing rule only for them to

be rebuked by the courts for simply doing what they did outside their delegated authority.

This is the same thing. This is an illegal rule, and it is a costly one. Our effort to educate our children, to build infrastructure, to provide essential government services--in other words, to make people's lives better--depends on our ability to deal with our resources. This is a costly rule. On Friday, it was estimated by one source that it could cost the industry up to $20 billion; it was estimated to cost States up to $6 billion; and it was estimated to cost the Federal Government in lost royalties up to $600 million a year. It is a costly rule and is a totally unnecessary rule.

Without this rule, the American energy industry will continue to do what they have done for well over a decade--reduce methane emissions on their own by investing in technology that not only helps the environment, but that helps them grow their business, which will lead to more jobs for Americans and more funding for State education programs and infrastructure. Since 2005, methane emissions have actually decreased even as production has increased, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that this progress will suddenly stop because we strike this unnecessary rule, this illegal rule, this totally redundant rule.

There are some who will say: Well, we need this rule to protect the taxpayers because we are burning up the royalty payments.

Oh, really? If one looks at the BLM's actions--their management on sage-grouse, their lease cancellations, pulling acreage out of lease sales at the last minute, their constant barrage of revenue-reducing agency actions--you will realize that saving taxpayers money is not the real goal here.

Look, there are only three things you can do with the methane. You can build pipelines to capture it and take it away where it can be used for the benefit of mankind. Unfortunately, the agencies in the last administration refused to do that. Even though, legally, they had to make decisions on pipelines within 60 days, there is not a single BLM office anywhere in the Nation that was meeting that legal deadline. Instead, it was open for months afterwards when nothing was happening. If you can't have the pipelines to move it away, you have to burn it. So, if they won't give the pipelines and if now they are trying to stop the burning of it, the only other option is not to drill at all.

Our policy should be to fund and make sure those pipelines and those rights of ways are approved so that we can actually capture the methane and use it for productive purposes. Unfortunately, this rule's real goal is to do the third element--simply stop the production. That is counterproductive.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution because it will help people and it will support people. This rule's repeal is a vote for people and making sure that their lives are better, not worse.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), who knows exactly what this means to his State and his State's economy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), who also understands this issue because it is part of the livelihood of his constituency.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), who lives in an area where he clearly understands what this issue is about.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Much has been said about what Colorado has been able to do as a State on this particular issue, and that's good because Colorado, as a State, has the legal responsibility and legal authorization to work with the EPA on this particular issue. Naturally, industry would be liking that because the States are far more effective in dealing with industry than the BLM ever is, which still does not have statutory authority in this particular area.

In fact, even Colorado has its limits. When they were cut out of the process on the stream buffer rule that we talked about earlier, they also joined the lawsuit against the EPA and against the Federal Government for that particular issue. It is simply hypocritical for BLM to pretend that this is about waste when they refuse to actually solve the problem by pipeline approval and rights-of-way approval, which is the total solution.

So what we come down to is that simply this is a rule that violates all three of the criteria set forth in the Congressional Review Act. It is a rule that is terribly expensive; it is a rule that is redundant; and it is a rule that exceeds the statutory authority of the entity that is making that particular rule, a prime candidate for use of the Congressional Review Act, which is our responsibility. It's a congressional responsibility to establish these standards, not the executive branch agencies.

If someone has decided not to vote for this resolution, to actually support this rule, I could ask: What is the deciding factor that pushed them over into accepting that position? Was it simply because this rule is redundant and unnecessary? That without this rule, emissions were being lowered and they were lowered before this rule was implemented and they will be lowered after this rule is decimated at the same time? Is it because of the redundancy? Did they decide to vote against this particular rule because, well, of the cost increase that it will bring?

The idea that affordable energy is being harmed by this particular rule is real, and that means that any person is going to feel an increased cost in their energy consumption. Whether it is trying to heat his or her home or every time they turn on a lightbulb, this rule raises that cost. Once again, it hurts the people who are at the bottom of our economic level who are the most vulnerable to these kinds of increases.

Is that what decided you to vote against this resolution or tipped you in the balance of trying to support the rule? Or is it simply the fact that it is an illegal rule? Is that the defining issue, that it simply is an illegal rule where they have no statutory authority to do what they did?

If those criteria are not good enough, then I ask you and urge you to do something that actually helps people and helps reduce the cost of energy and make sure that we have affordable energy so this economic and energy renaissance that we have had in the last decade can continue not just on State and private lands, but it can continue on Federal lands as well, which it has not done.

We need to do this to support people. We need to do this so that States can fund their infrastructure and States can actually fund their education system and people can turn on the lightbulb without having to take out a loan at the local bank to do so.

This rule repeal is the right thing to do. You should vote ``yes'' on this resolution because it helps people.

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