[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1796-1803]
[From the U.S. 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. It has especially hit those of us in the West 
very hard--those who are public land States in the West--who use our 
resources to fund our infrastructure and to pay for our schools and our 
essential government services.
  This rule, which is allegedly to help the environment, actually is 
designed to stop production; therefore, it becomes a prime candidate 
for a repeal under the Congressional Review Act, which was passed into 
law in 1996 and signed by President Clinton. At that time, Clinton said 
that this was a great way for Congress to be held accountable, and it 
truly is in that any rule is subject to this rule if it has one of 
three criteria: one, excessive costs; two, it was done beyond the 
particular agency's statutory authority; or, three, it is duplicative 
or unnecessary or redundant. With this particular rule, we have the 
trifecta because it is not just one of those criteria--it offends all 
of those criteria.
  The Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency, in its 
working with States, the authority to develop issues and regulations 
that address air quality. The Bureau of Land Management does not, and 
they are the ones who instituted this particular rule. In fact, the 
contortions the BLM went through to say they have the legal authority 
is almost embarrassing. The contortions they went through would qualify 
for an opening act on the Las Vegas Strip. Instead, it reminds us of 
when the BLM came up with the hydraulic fracturing rule only for them 
to be rebuked by the courts for simply doing what they did outside 
their delegated authority.
  This is the same thing. This is an illegal rule, and it is a costly 
one. Our effort to educate our children, to build infrastructure, to 
provide essential government services--in other words, to make people's 
lives better--depends on our ability to deal with our resources. This 
is a costly rule. On Friday, it was estimated by one source that it 
could cost the industry up to $20 billion; it was estimated to cost 
States up to $6 billion; and it was estimated to cost the Federal 
Government in lost royalties up to $600 million a year. It is a costly 
rule and is a totally unnecessary rule.
  Without this rule, the American energy industry will continue to do 
what they have done for well over a decade--reduce methane emissions on 
their own by investing in technology that not only helps the 
environment, but that helps them grow their business, which will lead 
to more jobs for Americans and more funding for State education 
programs and infrastructure. Since 2005, methane emissions have 
actually decreased even as production has increased, and there is 
absolutely no reason to believe that this progress will

[[Page 1797]]

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 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

[[Page 1798]]

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 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.

[[Page 1799]]

  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 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;

[[Page 1800]]

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.

[[Page 1801]]

  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).
  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

[[Page 1802]]

     Lafayette, Colorado, Montana Conservation Voters, Montana 
     Environmental Information Center--MEIC, National Association 
     of Consumer Advocates, National Center for Lesbian Rights, 
     National Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care, National 
     Parks Conservation Association, Natural Resources Council of 
     Maine, Natural Resources Defense Council, New Mexico 
     Sportsmen, NextGen Climate, Northern Plains Resource Council, 
     NW Energy Coalition, Physicians for Social Responsibility, 
     Physicians for Social Responsibility Maine Chapter.
       Pipeline Safety Coalition, Powder River Basin Resource 
     Council, Public Citizen, Rachel Carson Council, San Juan 
     Citizens Alliance, Sierra Club, SLO CLEAN WATER. ORG, 
     Southern Environmental Law Center, Southern Utah Wilderness 
     Alliance, The Ohio Environmental Council, The Wilderness 
     Society, Union of Concerned Scientists, US Human Rights 
     Network, Voices for Progress, WE ACT for Environmental 
     Justice, Western Colorado Congress, Western Environmental Law 
     Center, Western Organization of Resource Councils, Wholly 
     H2O, WildEarth Guardians, Wilderness Workshop, Wyoming 
     Outdoor Council.
                                  ____

                                                 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-

[[Page 1803]]

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 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.

                          ____________________