[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1703-1708]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 1704]]

course with the previous administration. In 2016, the Obama 
administration finalized over 400 regulations at a cost of over $160 
billion to the economy. Over the entire Obama Presidency, over 3,000 
regulations, at a cost of $873.6 billion, were finalized.
  I am heartened by President Trump's regulatory freeze, which has been 
estimated to save over $180 billion in regulatory costs, followed by 
his executive order which aims to revoke two regulations for every new 
regulation put forward.
  Specifically, H.J. Res. 36 overturns the BLM methane rule. The rule 
is a significant regulatory overreach by the Bureau of Land Management. 
Under the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency has the 
authority to regulate methane emissions, which it currently does. 
Instead, the BLM has decided to also assert authority over methane in a 
way that is both duplicative and unnecessary, yet has significant 
negative impact on jobs, energy production, and Federal, State, and 
local revenues.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a regulation in search of a problem. According 
to a 2015 EPA study, methane emissions from both natural gas systems 
and crude oil production have fallen by significant margin, even while 
oil and natural gas production have exploded. The BLM flaring rule is 
both costly and unnecessary.
  The second rule considered by this resolution is similarly a solution 
in search of a problem. For decades, the Federal Government has had a 
suspension and debarment process in place to deny Federal contracts to 
bad actors who violate basic worker protections. However, President 
Obama signed an executive order directing various agencies to add 
another layer of bureaucracy onto the Federal procurement system. Prior 
to awarding a contract, each agency's contracting officer and a newly 
created labor compliance adviser will be required to review both 
violations and alleged violations to determine whether an employer 
should be awarded a Federal contract. Even the courts have agreed this 
is overreach. In October of 2016, a Federal district judge blocked 
enforcement of these rules, citing concerns with the violation of due 
process rights and executive overreach.
  For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, it is critical that we prevent 
implementation of these rules which are unnecessary and add even more 
regulatory burdens to our struggling businesses and anemic economy.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. 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

[[Page 1705]]

State of Colorado. This rule directly threatens the livelihood of many 
businesses and employees in my home State.
  If, for some strange reason, the job creation argument isn't enough 
for you, how about the hundreds of millions of dollars American 
taxpayers would collect over the next decade from additional royalties?
  Oil and gas companies are required to pay for the methane they 
collect and sell from public lands, and the more that is captured 
rather than burned off, the better not only for the companies and the 
employees, but also for taxpayers as we try to reduce our budget 
deficit.
  An estimated $140 million in royalties over the next decade would be 
lost if this CRA moves forward. That is $140 million more in deficit 
spending that this rule signifies if it were to pass, and that is why 
it is opposed by Taxpayers for Common Sense and most other fiscally 
conservative groups.
  Again, if job creation, science, and taxpayer savings aren't enough, 
how about the cancer-causing impacts, carcinogenic effects, of oil and 
gas drilling?
  Stacy Lambright lives in Thornton, Colorado, near my district with 
her husband, Eric, and her two kids, Jack and Molly. Stacy became a 
community activist and a member of Moms Clean Air Force after she found 
out her neighborhood park frequented by children and families was 
directly next to a leaking oil and gas fracking well.
  Stacy and her family have been living in the neighborhood for over 14 
years, and they have started to experience health concerns after oil 
and gas drillers moved in. Since 2015, Stacy's been documenting an 
unusual amount of nosebleeds in her family. Just as recently as Monday, 
her daughter had a nosebleed, while her son had six nosebleeds last 
month, something they never had before. And Stacy's husband's asthma 
has significantly increased.
  They have lived in the neighborhood for 14 years and only recently, 
since the drilling occurred, have they had these health impacts. There 
have been no changes in their home or surrounding neighborhood other 
than the increased amount of fracking and oil and gas wells and leaks, 
documented leaks, to existing wells.
  This methane rule further threatens the health of constituents as we 
gather additional data, and that is why Stacy is advocating for 
stronger legislation and better management practices, not worse 
management practices, with regard to existing oil and gas wells.
  The safety and health of Stacy's family should be a top priority for 
Congress, but it appears, instead, the Republicans' top priority in 
this resolution is bringing us back to a time when our water is 
polluted, our skies are smoggy, and health issues from dirty air are a 
burden for families.
  I know it has been argued--we probably will again--that oil and gas 
companies are fixing and capping leaks on their own, but that is false. 
There is a massive amount of gas leaked every day, and these companies 
have not reduced methane emissions from the field one bit. Again, 
absent this rule, we will see more of this kind of activity, not less.
  Another argument is that infrastructure, like pipelines, is important 
to prevent methane flaring. And of course that is true, but a GAO 
report says that only 9 percent of venting and flaring is due to the 
lack of infrastructure, so it is only a small part of the overall 
issue.
  And, by the way, this rule doesn't block or in any way impede any new 
infrastructure projects, and more infrastructure alone clearly won't 
solve the problem of leaking wells and flaring methane.
  The issue of leaking methane, in particular, is partially addressed 
by this rule, which, by the way, doesn't go far enough. However, what 
they wrote has been proven to work in creating jobs and cleaning up our 
air.
  In Colorado, we have a methane rule that, frankly, this rule is 
largely based on, and I know it has worked in Colorado. And while we 
need to do a lot better in my home State, at least some level of 
baseline can work for the whole country.
  Oil production on Federal lands went up 28 percent between 2010 and 
2015 under the Obama administration. There is no question that BLM has 
and still has authority to regulate methane. It is a waste of taxpayer 
money, a misuse of our public lands to do anything other than to reduce 
our methane emissions.
  Just as an aside, the benefits of this rule include increased job 
creation, cleaner air, healthier families, and the climate.
  BLM was extraordinarily conscientious when drafting this rule. They 
held eight public forums. They extended the comment period for 75 days. 
Over 300,000 public comments were collected and addressed. The BLM's 
methane rule was done out in the open with public input as opposed to, 
by the way, this process, which was done behind closed doors, without a 
public hearing, and didn't even have a committee hearing.
  It doesn't make sense to use the CRA to repeal this BLM methane rule. 
This BLM methane rule creates jobs, protects our families, saves 
taxpayer money, and reduces our budget deficit.
  The second amendment I offered got to the heart of the problem with 
CRAs in general. Regardless of the rules that they are impacting, they 
are a reckless, blunt tool, and they are not the right instrument for 
honest, thoughtful legislating.
  If Congress has a problem with the authority under which the methane 
rule was issued, we should amend the statutory authority of the agency, 
not use a congressional resolution of disapproval.
  My other amendment simply said that the agency has the right and 
authority to write a rule impacting this issue which, otherwise, the 
CRA could effectively prevent; and due to that uncertainty, passing the 
CRA creates even more uncertainty for the industry.
  As the Denver Post, a newspaper that has endorsed dozens of 
Republicans over the last few years, said in regards to this methane 
waste rule: ``Congress is getting ready to use an ax where it needs a 
scalpel.''
  The Congressional Review Act is one of the most ridiculous tools to 
be used by Congress, and, regardless of whether you disagree or agree 
with the policy, the better way to approach it would be to amend the 
statutory authority of the agency to make it clear whether they have 
the authority to issue this kind of rule and under what conditions.
  While we may disagree on that, and we may be able to offer and bring 
to the floor amendments regarding agency authority, that is the 
appropriate venue for this discussion.
  Let's move on to the other bill under this rule, the Fair Pay and 
Safe Workplaces bill. My Republican colleagues continue to refer to 
this order as a problematic order. Unfortunately, it is another attempt 
to mislead the American people. This is a tactic the Republican elite 
have called ``providing alternative facts.''
  The rule under CRA today comes from the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces 
executive order, and it is sorely needed legislation. What this rule 
says is, if you are a company that consistently breaks the law, without 
regard for your workplace, workers, taxpayers, or the community, you 
should not receive millions of dollars in taxpayer contracts.
  It makes common sense to me. If you are abusing workers, have engaged 
in tax fraud, why would we want to contract with you with our taxpayer 
dollars?
  Companies that cut corners in safety or fair pay, dozens of other 
areas, shouldn't get to compete for our taxpayer money against good 
actors and companies that play by the rules. Everybody needs to start 
from a level playing field.
  Now, to be clear, there are only a few bad actors. The vast majority 
of companies have no issue at all with this rule. But unscrupulous 
actors who have ignored the law, violated the law, cut corners, should 
not be rewarded; and, to this day, there are a few bad actors that 
continue to receive billions of dollars of your taxpayer money in 
Federal contracts.

[[Page 1706]]

  In 2010, a GAO report proved that there was a problem. GAO 
investigated 15 Federal contractors cited for violating hundreds of 
Federal labor laws enforced by the Department of Labor, OSHA, and the 
National Labor Relations Board. The Federal Government awarded these 15 
Federal contractors over $6 billion in government contract obligations, 
your money going to known violators in 2009 alone.
  How about that for waste, fraud, and abuse?
  Now, look, I don't know about my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, but fiscal responsibility is core to my beliefs as a Member of 
Congress. That is why I am a proud cosponsor of an amendment to require 
a balanced budget.
  I believe in the value of hard work and personal responsibility. If 
we know a company is cutting corners, taking the easy way out, and 
avoiding the responsibility of the law, why would we reward them with 
your money?
  Organizations throughout the country, representing a diverse group of 
stakeholders, agree. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human 
Rights, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Service Employees 
International Union all join me in opposition to this Congressional 
Review Act. They recognize the value of hard work. They don't support 
companies who cheat. I don't know why my Republicans colleagues do.
  This rule modernizes an antiquated system. Right now it is virtually 
impossible for procurement officials to know if company A has had any 
violations when they are up against company B for a contract. If 
company A has been cheating workers out of overtime and that allows 
them to underbid Company B, they shouldn't get the contract and be 
rewarded for violating the law.
  This executive order will increase coordination, simplification, 
access to information, and streamline the system.
  This executive order does not set up any way for companies to be 
banned or disbarred. That process has always existed and will still 
exist alongside this as a separate, independent process. In fact, what 
this process does is it provides a remedial path for companies to right 
the ship, to get right with the law, to be eligible, once again, for 
Federal contracts.
  A simple or rare mistake should, of course, not bar a company from 
participating in the Federal recruitment process. Instead, companies 
with repeated and excessive transgressions should be helped to follow 
the law and create a better workplace and be rewarded to be better 
stewards of taxpayers dollars.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. 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

[[Page 1707]]

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 
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:

[[Page 1708]]

       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 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.

                          ____________________