[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 19 (Friday, February 3, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H951-H958]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A FINAL RULE OF THE BUREAU
OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. 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.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hultgren). Pursuant to House Resolution
74, the joint resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
H.J. Res. 36
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress
disapproves the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land
Management relating to ``Waste Prevention, Production Subject
to Royalties, and Resource Conservation'' (published at 81
Fed. Reg. 83008 (November 18, 2016)), and such rule shall
have no force or effect.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
General Leave
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on
H.J. Res. 36.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Utah?
There was no objection.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. 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
[[Page H952]]
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. LOWENTHAL. 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.
{time} 0930
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
[[Page H953]]
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. BISHOP of Utah. 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. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, New Mexico gets 40 percent of its State's
revenues from oil and gas, that is, 40 percent of our teachers' pay, 40
percent of our government institutions, law enforcement, hospitals--40
percent. So when the Federal Government begins to adjust the rules, we
in New Mexico take an interest because it provides our jobs and it
provides the way we educate our children.
Now, we have two points of view being postulated on this argument
nationwide. One says that the government is suddenly becoming the model
of efficiency. I wonder where that efficiency is with regard to the
$200 billion of fraud in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The
government hasn't suddenly gotten efficient about that. Or just your
local post office, has it suddenly gotten efficient about that? Or you
could listen to the argument that the government is suddenly interested
in the environment and we are going to make it clean.
The BLM did not say a word when the Gold King Mine spill not only was
allowed, but mandated to be turned loose by the EPA. The heavy metals
ran down across those public lands and currently sit in the streambeds
in New Mexico, and our friends say that the government is suddenly all
worried about the environment.
When you look specifically at the venting and flaring rule, we are
told that oil and gas production went up dramatically in the last
years. The truth is, when you dissect it down, oil and gas production
on private lands went up dramatically. Oil and gas on public lands, the
government lands owned by the BLM and other agencies, went down
dramatically.
So when the BLM decided to go in and control the venting and flaring
of gasses, then we in New Mexico looked and said, is the government
suddenly being more concerned about us or is it one more wink and nod
to the special interests who want to kill the industries? They have
already succeeding in killing the timber industry in this country. They
have the coal industry on its back, and they want to kill the oil and
gas industry that provides the jobs in New Mexico.
Yes, we have an opinion about that. Oil and gas production, again,
educates our kids. Oil and gas production provides our jobs. It
provides the way of life that we in this country are looking for. We
contribute heavily to that, but we don't stand silently when the
government suddenly decides our best interests are at stake.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to
the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, we could go through all of the examples. The
truth is many reports say that over three-quarters of the marginal
wells--those are the ones in New Mexico; we have the stripper wells,
the marginal wells--will be shut in by this action.
You are going to take money away from our State government. You are
going to take jobs away from the people. I support the resolution. We
should back this regulation off, cut the red tape that is starving
America's jobs out of this country.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).
Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
resolution and efforts to roll back important protections for not only
our environment, but for American taxpayers.
Our Nation's public lands belong to all Americans, and they are
managed to balance many competing uses: recreation; responsible
economic development; sustainable resource extraction; yes, renewable
energy; military purposes; and conservation of historic American
landscapes, just to name a few. As such, they should be subject to
strong national standards that protect our shared water, shared lands,
wildlife, and the multiple uses they support.
It is also critical to remember that use of our public lands is a
privilege, not a right; and companies seeking to exercise that
privilege, whether they be fossil fuel companies or clean energy
companies developing wind, solar, and geothermal projects, should be
held to a very high standard to preserve and protect resources that
belong to all of the American people.
We must also make sure that the taxpayers get a fair return for the
use and development of our commonly shared resources. The Mineral
Leasing Act, as written by Congress, calls upon the Secretary of the
Interior to prevent the waste of oil and gas resources on public lands.
The Bureau of Land Management's methane waste rule achieves all of
these shared goals: the rule prevents the waste of resources that
belong to all American people, which, by law, it is required to do; it
reduces the amount of greenhouse gas pollution coming off our public
lands; and it increases royalty payments to Federal taxpayers and the
States.
The methane waste rule also supports job creation and American
innovation in new technologies. The methane mitigation industry is a
growing and emerging field that uses modern technologies to identify
and capture wasteful emissions. In fact, a 2014 report commissioned by
the Environmental Defense Fund found that methane mitigation companies
provide jobs in 46 States and support 102 manufacturing and assembly
locations, with 59 percent of all companies across the industry being
small businesses.
If Republicans had brought this resolution before the House Natural
Resources Committee, we could have more thoroughly examined its
negative impacts on job creation. Instead, it was rushed to the House
floor with only this 1 hour of debate.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, perhaps no aspect of America's economy has
been as overregulated as energy under the Obama administration; so this
week, the House has already acted to repeal two of the most damaging
energy regulations.
This morning we continue the fight to reduce the unnecessary
regulatory costs that are passed along to all Americans by repealing
the Bureau of Land Management's venting and flaring rule. Some
estimates show that this rule could inflict staggering costs
[[Page H954]]
of $1.26 billion on national, State, and local economies, while
generating less than $4 million in new royalties.
In addition, the legal basis for this rule is tenuous at best. The
Clean Air Act authorizes the EPA, not BLM, working in conjunction with
States, to make rules affecting air quality.
The BLM's venting and flaring rule's extreme compliance cost will
force many companies to shut in their wells rather than to continue to
operate them. This will be particularly true for marginal wells that
are often run by family-owned businesses.
And beyond the loss of jobs in Colorado and elsewhere, State and
Federal Governments would lose up to $114 million in tax receipts. This
is money that States like Colorado depend on for funding education and
other critical services.
The increase in natural gas production is to the benefit of everyday
Americans. The U.S. energy boom saved drivers $550 in fuel costs each
year and saved American households over $1,000 last year alone.
Affordable, environmentally responsible energy development is
critical to the U.S. economy, but this rule is a needless burden on
American families. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the
joint resolution of disapproval.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. 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.
{time} 0945
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. 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. TIPTON. Mr. Speaker, I know I, and many of my colleagues, share
concern about a Federal regulatory code that has become so bloated with
redundant, ineffective, and unnecessary rules that the sheer bulk of it
threatens to suffocate American economic recovery and long-term
prosperity.
The Bureau of Land Management's rule to reduce venting and flaring
from existing oil and natural gas operations is one such example of
duplicative and unnecessary regulation. Aside from the fact that the
authority to regulate air quality does not rest with the BLM, we
certainly don't need the BLM rule in addition to the EPA methane rule
and State regulations, which our colleagues on the other side have
noted and lauded that have come out of the State of Colorado.
For all of the costs this rule would impose on industry, the supposed
benefits of the rule would be emission reductions in the neighborhood
of less than one one-hundredth of a percent of global greenhouse
emissions. That is the definition of an ineffectual rule.
Methane is a marketable resource, and the oil and gas industry would
prefer to economically capture and sell that resource, rather than vent
or flare it, which is a necessary safety procedure in the absence of
other viable options.
Instead of using its authority to take actions that would effectively
facilitate capture versus venting or flaring, like processing pipeline
right-of-way permits in a timely manner, the agency has once again
issued a rule that unnecessarily burdens energy development.
There are cost-effective strategies available that will achieve
emission reductions, and it is those strategies that we should focus
our efforts on, rather than duplicative regulations.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 15\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Utah has 17\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. 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. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. LaMalfa).
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the measure for
congressional disapproval of the BLM's methane rule under this
Congressional Review Act. This egregious rule passed in the last few
days of the previous administration is yet another regulatory blow to
responsible energy development on lands held by the Federal Government
for the American people.
I think the American people have a right to expect that their Federal
Government is not only holding these lands, but that it is utilizing
this asset, an asset that can gain income to the Federal Government on
their behalf to maintain more lands, and also to utilize the energy at
low cost from domestically produced energy that comes from their lands,
instead of importing it from somewhere else, et cetera. It goes without
question that producing it here in this country is a giant benefit to
the U.S. and its economy.
As a strong proponent of an all-of-the-above energy approach, I
believe natural gas will continue to significantly transform and
modernize our Nation's energy infrastructure. Domestically produced
energy has so many positive effects it should be a no-brainer.
The BLM claims that this rule helps capture methane waste, resulting
in a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Let's face some facts.
According to a report by the EPA, methane emissions from natural gas
production have decreased by 38 percent in the last 10 years, while gas
production on Federal lands has increased by 33 percent. Believe it or
not, this reduction was done through voluntary action on behalf of
industry, without changes to Federal regulations, in capturing and
utilizing this asset.
Even in my home State of California, the oil and gas industry has
created
[[Page H955]]
tremendous opportunity for our workforce. A recent report shows that
total economic contribution of oil and gas in California, in 2013,
resulted in the creation of 455,000 jobs and $72 billion in value added
to the State economy, approximately 3.4 percent of State GDP; indeed,
no small numbers when the State of California is in big trouble
fiscally, as it pursues more things like high speed rail and other
nonsense.
Stifling this vibrant and booming economic driver in my State and
others would be detrimental to the U.S. economy as a whole, while
making us more reliant upon energy from unstable regions of the globe
and the higher costs to consumers at home and in their workplace.
Furthermore, the BLM falsely claims it has authority under existing
law to regulate oil and gas emissions. Such authority already belongs
to the EPA and the States under the Clean Air Act, not the BLM.
Indeed, the BLM needs to get its priorities and its jurisdiction in
order. The agency spends valuable taxpayer resources developing a rule
to prevent methane flaring, yet denies rights-of-way permitting for
pipelines, which would help eliminate these kinds of releases
altogether. That is one of the important benefits of the Congressional
Review Act is accountability by an elected Congress over a bureaucracy.
Failure to reverse this rule would result in a net loss in royalties
that would negatively impact not just the Federal Government but Indian
tribes as well which rely on energy revenue to meet their health care,
housing, and other needs of their members on their lands.
The abuses and overreach by a previous Obama administration have gone
long enough. It is time we put an end to the senseless,
counterproductive regulations, and restore commonsense solutions to
energy development on the people's Federal lands.
The administration taking credit for increased gas production is
disingenuous, as most of it occurred on private lands, leaving our
public assets and potential unused.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. LaMALFA. Indeed, it would be a loss for the American public to
continue along that path.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the efforts in bringing this forward and
the opportunity to have a Congressional Review Act for the
accountability.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. 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. BISHOP of Utah. 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. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, BLM's Methane and Waste Prevention rule
really is an overreach of authority that is already held by the EPA and
the States. In fact, in North Dakota, the Department of Mineral
Resources has waste prevention or conservation rules in place and is
the first in the Nation to set gas capture requirements and goals.
Requiring operators to meet yet another set of rules, in addition to
States' permits, results in substantial increases in both time and cost
without any additional benefit to the public or to the environment, and
that would also subject operators to conflicting rules, which actually
could have the adverse effect that this rule aims at.
Just in North Dakota alone, it is estimated this rule would cost $24
million in lost tax revenue, and $240 million per year would be lost in
production, but $39 million, most importantly, would be lost in royalty
revenues, not to big, rich oil companies who make large contributions,
as our friends on the other side like to talk about, but to regular
people, farmers and ranchers and landowners who own the royalty, who
get the royalty. These are the very people the Democrats love to talk
about but don't seem to know how to talk to.
Methane leaks are wasteful, but there is a natural incentive to
capture it. Methane is not a waste product, it is a commodity.
The overall, best-case scenario impact of this rule would be a
reduction of 0.06 percent. Now, if the BLM really wants to do
something, they could streamline the permitting of the infrastructure
that would capture it.
I know of two pipeline projects in North Dakota alone that, had they
been allowed to move forward, at no expense to the government, had they
been allowed to move forward by the BLM, without its heavy hand of
regulation, would have reduced emissions 6 percent; 6 percent with the
natural incentive, stopped by the BLM, rather than this rule, which
would, perhaps in the best case scenario, reduce it 0.06 percent.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. CRAMER. In wrapping up, I thank the chairman for the time and for
his leadership.
Let's pass this CRA and overturn this egregious, unproductive BLM
rule and return the authority where it belongs, back to the States.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. 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.''
{time} 1000
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. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
[[Page H956]]
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, American workers and American businesses
are the most innovative and productive in the world. This is no more
evident than in our oil and gas fields--the ones in my district, in my
State, across our country, and offshore.
Mr. Speaker, in spite of the Obama administration's war on energy,
our producers made huge gains in technology, production, and
productivity to meet the needs and lower energy costs.
The gentleman from California is correct, energy production has
increased during the Obama administration. According to this 2016 CBO
report, both oil and gas production has increased on State and private
lands both onshore and offshore. However, during the same time, under
the heavy hand of the Obama administration, production on Federal lands
has decreased. The Energy Information Administration reported that oil
production on non-Federal lands has increased 89 percent while it has
decreased 10 percent on Federal lands, while gas production has
increased 37 percent on non-Federal lands and decreased 37 percent on
Federal lands.
The Bureau of Land Management's venting and flaring rule is an
overreach of the Obama administration. This is not about the
environment. It is about extending the war on energy to private and
State lands. The rule increases costs on producers, which are then
passed on to customers, stifling job growth and hurting the economy.
The BLM, as it has already been said, does not even have the legal
authority to regulate air quality. It is an authority expressly
provided to the EPA by the Clean Air Act. Methane emissions are already
on the decline, dropping 21 percent since 1990 to 2014. This drop
occurred despite the rise in natural gas production by nearly 47
percent. If the venting and flaring rule goes into full effect, it will
cost nearly $1 billion by 2025.
The result of overregulation is a decrease in domestic energy
production, lost jobs, a battered economy, and an increased dependence
on foreign energy sources. A repeal of the venting and flaring rule is
necessary to protect our economy, the Constitution, and the American
people.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. 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. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to close, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. 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.
[[Page H957]]
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.
____
February 1, 2017.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the tens of thousands of
members of the undersigned medical and public health
organizations, and the communities we serve, we strongly urge
you to oppose any Congressional Review Act resolution of
disapproval that would block air pollution limits that
address the leakage of methane, including the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) Methane and Waste Prevention Rule.
The Congressional Review Act is a blunt tool that would
permanently block actions by BLM to reduce dangerous and
wasteful methane leaks from the oil and gas industries. Use
of the Congressional Review Act would not only block current
actions to solve manageable problems; it would also prevent
BLM from moving forward with substantially similar actions in
the future.
Methane fugitive emissions (leaks) occur from oil and gas
wells, drilling-related infrastructure and natural gas
pipelines. Estimates of the amount of methane lost to leakage
range from 9.3 percent to about 12 percent. Not only are
these leaks wasteful, but they also create dangerous threats
to health.
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs), gases recognized as
hazardous air pollutants, accompany the methane extracted
from deep underground wells. VOCs include benzene, a known
human carcinogen; ethylbenzene, a probable carcinogen; and
toluene, a neurotoxin (affecting the nervous system) that may
also cause miscarriages and birth defects. Comprehensive
methane limits would immediately reduce emissions of these
life-threatening substances.
VOCs are also precursors to the formation of ground-level
ozone, a dangerous air pollutant that causes permanent lung
damage. By limiting emissions of VOCs, 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 premature
deaths.
Finally, methane itself is a highly potent driver of
climate change, one of the greatest threats to public health
in our time. Methane is an extremely powerful heat-trapping
gas; over its first 20 years in the atmosphere, it is 84
times more effective at retaining heat than is carbon dioxide
. . . The resulting higher temperatures mean longer and
hotter heat waves and more ground-level ozone; these in turn
contribute to asthma attacks, cardiovascular disease, heart
attacks and premature death. Climate change also increases
the frequency and intensity of storms, droughts, wildfires
and flooding; these are associated with accidental deaths,
crop losses, air pollution, water contamination, and the
spread of disease-causing pathogens. If we as health and
medical organizations are to protect the public's health, it
is vital that our nation make progress in the fight against
climate change.
The Congressional Review Act, if applied to BLM's Methane
and Waste Prevention Rule, would block feasible, affordable
steps to reduce methane leakage. It would deprive Americans
of vital protections from carcinogenic and neurotoxic
substances and from climate change. Please make the health of
your constituents your priority and reject the use of
Congressional Review Act resolutions on actions that would
protect our health and our current and future wellbeing.
Sincerely,
Alergy & Asthma Network, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy
Environments, American Lung Association, American Public
Health Association, American Thoracic Society, Asthma and
Allergy Foundation of America, Center for Climate Change &
Health, Health Care Without Harm, National Association of
County & City Health Officials, National Environmental Health
Association, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Public
Health Institute, Trust for America's Health.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. 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.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong
opposition to H.J. Res 36, expressing disapproval of the Methane Waste
Rule submitted by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management.
The Methane Waste Rule is a critical update to decades old regulation
that provides clear and established requirements for the responsible
extraction of methane gas ensuring that public health is not put at
risk from these harmful emissions.
The rule, crafted in an extensive and transparent public process in
line with the Bureau of Land Management's mandate to capture wasted
methane, includes reasonable reforms to avoid and minimize waste of
natural gas from flaring, venting and leaking from oil and gas
production operations. Grounded in peer-reviewed, scientific evidence,
the rule updates 37-year old regulations to keep pace with modern
technological advancements. It promotes the replacement of older
technology, with new, modern equipment that is cost effective, and,
when combined with a broader scientific understanding of the
deleterious effects caused by these activities both to public health
and the environment, works to better protect the American people from
these harmful emissions.
With methane emissions increasing by 45 percent since 1990 and a 319
percent increase in flaring from 2009, the United States must act
swiftly to not only protect public health, but the environment too.
When these natural gases are released, they emit ozone-destroying
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) which are 86 times more destructive
to the protective ozone in our atmosphere than carbon emissions.
During the development of this critical rule, the Department of
Interior received over 200,000 public comments, hosted public meetings,
and engaged in broad outreach to stake
[[Page H958]]
holders nationwide over a 3-year period. This rule was carefully
developed and thoroughly considered.
Furthermore, it is important that tax payers understand that this is
also a cost-savings rule, mitigating the over $330 million worth of
natural gas wasted every year as a result of flaring, venting, and
leaking.
Ultimately, repealing the Methane Waste Rule would undermine the
health, well-being, and economic prosperity of the American public and
do nothing to combat the growing concern of climate change. I strongly
urge my colleagues to reject H.J. Res 36. Any effort to undermine this
important health, economic, and environmental protection results in a
lose-lose situation for the American public and I oppose it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered on the joint
resolution.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on passage of the joint resolution will be followed by a 5-
minute vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if
ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221,
nays 191, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 78]
YEAS--221
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cramer
Crawford
Cuellar
Culberson
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NAYS--191
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Cartwright
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Faso
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Mast
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Reichert
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sanford
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Stefanik
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--20
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Engel
Evans
Gosar
Hastings
Jackson Lee
Jones
Labrador
Mulvaney
Nunes
Price, Tom (GA)
Reed
Rush
Scalise
Walker
Zinke
{time} 1034
Messrs. MAST, BLUMENAUER, and MEEHAN changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
So the joint resolution was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________