[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 18 (Thursday, February 2, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H888-H893]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1215
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 36, PROVIDING FOR
CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A FINAL RULE OF THE BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 37,
DISAPPROVING A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, THE GENERAL
SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, AND THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
ADMINISTRATION
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 74 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 74
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House 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''. All points of order against consideration of
the joint resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall
be considered as read. All points of order against provisions
in the joint resolution are waived. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on
any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Natural Resources; and (2) one motion to
recommit.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J.
Res. 37) disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of
Defense, the General Services Administration, and the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration relating to the
Federal Acquisition Regulation. All points of order against
consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The joint
resolution shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint
resolution and on any amendment thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform; and (2) one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Graves of Louisiana). The gentleman from
Oklahoma is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. COLE. 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. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLE. 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.
[[Page H889]]
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. POLIS. 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.
{time} 1230
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
[[Page H890]]
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
[[Page H891]]
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. COLE. 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. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.
What does this rule do? It enables the repeal of protections for
American workers. These are regulations that ensure that Federal
contractors must disclose labor violations across 14 basic labor laws.
{time} 1245
Our Federal contractors employ approximately 28 million workers, and
while the vast majority of contractors are in compliance,
unfortunately, every year American workers are denied their overtime
wages, they are discriminated against for their gender, or their age,
or had their health and their safety put at risk.
Why is this Republican majority working so hard to ensure that
billions of taxpayer dollars continue to go to contractors that cheat
their workers? This executive order targets those bad actors and the
most egregious cases.
The intention of the executive order was to encourage compliance with
the law and level the playing field for contractors who are playing by
the rules. If there are no violations, bidders simply check a box.
What should we be doing here in this body? We should be increasing
worker protections, not demeaning them or decreasing them. The more
than one in five Americans who would be affected should be protected by
our labor laws.
Mr. COLE. 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.
Mr. POLIS. I am prepared to close if the gentleman doesn't have any
remaining speakers.
Mr. COLE. I am certainly prepared to close.
Mr. POLIS. 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
[[Page H892]]
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 SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. COLE. 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.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 74 Offered by Mr. Polis
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
724) to provide that the Executive Order entitled
``Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the
United States'' (January 27, 2017), shall have no force or
effect, to prohibit the use of Federal funds to enforce the
Executive Order, and for other purposes. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. All points of order against
provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of
the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution
on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House
shall, immediately after the third daily order of business
under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the
Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 724.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's
[[Page H893]]
ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal
of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question
passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in
order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of
the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House
defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition
rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________