Alan Lowenthal

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, my district is a poster child for the need for ocean coordination and information sharing. In my district, we have the busiest port complex in North America, we have offshore drilling, we have San Clemente Island, which is a naval training ground where they have a ship-to-shore firing range. We have abundant wildlife in the district. On top of that, sea level rise and extreme weather threatens neighborhoods and businesses all along the coast of my district. With so much activity happening, it simply makes sense to have the various stakeholders at the table, to make sure ships come in and out of port safely, to ensure that our thriving economy stays thriving, and to give the military space to train. We want these collaborations to happen because we want to have a sustainable ocean economy. By developing regional plans and having a framework for multi- stakeholder involvement, we can promote a robust ocean economy that also conserves our precious ocean resources. The country and my district needs a comprehensive approach to our ocean resources, which the National Ocean Policy provides. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, Howard L. Chambers, who has served as the city manager of the City of Lakewood for more than four decades, has announced that he will be retiring from his role at the administrative helm of the city. Howard has served longer as city manager of the same city longer than any other city manager in California--this in a profession where the average length of service in California cities is about seven years. A true ``native son,'' Howard is a lifelong member of the Lakewood community, growing up near Mayfair Park, going to neighborhood schools, even working at the local YMCA. After earning his degree at Cal State Long Beach, Howard interned at the City of Lakewood for two years, handling youth services. He then went to work with the City of Rosemead as an assistant city manager. Howard returned to Lakewood in 1972 in the role of an executive assistant to the city manager. In 1976, the same year he earned a Master of Arts degree in Planning and Administration from Pepperdine University, Howard was named acting city administrator and shortly thereafter hired to permanently fill the position. The city council later officially re-titled the position as city manager. Always looking to push his skill level further, he earned a Master of Public Administration degree from the University of Southern California in 1981 and was a Fellow of the Program for Senior Executives in State and Local Government at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government in 1988. In 2005, he completed a rigorous evaluation process and became a Credentialed Manager under the auspices of the International City/ County Management Association. Howard eventually served 34 years as Lakewood City Manager, retiring in 2011. However, within a year, the city council asked him to return to the role. He returned in 2012 and remained until his retirement this year. In total, his 41 years as city manager represent nearly two- thirds of the 63-year-old city's entire existence. It is safe to say that the vast majority of the city's 80,000 residents have known no one but Howard as city manager. During his tenure as Lakewood city manager, Howard managed the city's largest public works project in its first 50 years: the $16 million improvement of the Lakewood Civic Center and construction of The Centre at Sycamore Plaza. He later oversaw the $21-million expansion and modernization of the Lakewood Sheriff's Station, the largest single project in the city's history. The sheriff's station expansion project was completed without a new tax, tax increase, or special assessment. None of this has gone unnoticed and on his watch, Lakewood has deservedly earned many awards for the quality of its services, its commitment to responsive government, and its innovations. Over his record-setting 40 years behind the city manager's desk, Howard has become a respected leader among area city managers, always willing to take the time to share his professional experience with his colleagues on issues affecting Southern California, its residents, and its infrastructure. Howard has also worked tirelessly and effectively on ad hoc committees and coalitions to address federal, state, and local issues, and has never shied away from a principled battle. As a long-term member of the International City/County Management Association (ICMA), Chairman of the Southeast Los Angeles County Municipal Management Group, the California Contract Cities Association, and a member of the League of California Cities' City Managers Division, Howard has worked with elected and appointed city officials, legislators, regulators, the business community, residents, and others to achieve solutions to the critical issues affecting local governments. In addition to his public service, Howard has made community service a priority. His involvement includes the Lakewood Rotary Club, the Weingart-Lakewood Family YMCA, Lakewood Special Olympics, the American Heart Association, Su Casa Ending Domestic Violence, Lakewood Regional Hospital, Kris Kringle Charity Golf Tournament, and Project Shepherd. For his sustained excellence, he has been recognized throughout his career by a variety of organizations including ICMA, Harvard University John F. Kennedy School of Government, California Jaycees, YMCA, Lakewood City Council, Lakewood City Employees Association, and Su Casa Ending Domestic Violence. Howard is considered a legend in the city management profession and is known for his ability to build working relationships with city staffers, civic leaders, and state legislators. He also is a role model for his peers. Known for his ``teachable moments,'' he has become a mentor and teacher to an entire generation of new city managers. He has been and will continue to be passionate about local government, and his involvement in community activities and achievements in public service have resulted in significant benefits to Lakewood and surrounding communities. I have truly appreciated the time I have spent working with Howard. He has a great sense of humor and even when we have disagreed, he is respectful and thoughtful. I will miss Howard's leadership and his guidance.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, the Senate version was supposed to be the one, according to the President, with heart. There is no heart in this bill. Sixty percent of my constituents live in Los Angeles County which, in total, has about 5 percent--one county in the country has about 5 percent--of this country's Medicaid recipients. The proposed Senate bill cuts to Medicaid would put more than a quarter of those currently receiving Medicaid assistance in L.A. County, nearly 900,000 people, at risk for losing health insurance. This is not a healthcare bill. This is a tax cut for the wealthy, dressed up to look like serious legislation. The rich get richer, while everyone else is left to get poorer and sicker. This is not who we are as Americans.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I, like many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, am concerned about the long-term prospects for water infrastructure and storage in the West. As the western climate continues to get hotter, we are going to have more hot, dry, drought years. That is why many States and communities, including the cities that I represent, are doing all that they can to make their water infrastructure more resilient, to reduce unneeded runoff, to recycle water, and to store as much ground water as possible. To support these critical activities, Congress needs to invest in our country's water infrastructure. The bill before us today does not do any of these things. It does not authorize new or additional funding for water projects. It is not an infrastructure bill. Instead, the bill before us today makes many Americans nervous because it loosens key environmental safeguards and imposes arbitrary deadlines for the approval of dams on our rivers and streams. This bill threatens the health of our streams, our rivers, and coastlines, which could harm fish populations important to commercial fisheries. Therefore, I am offering a straightforward amendment. It simply requires proposed new dams to go through the normal project review process if they are likely to harm commercial fisheries. The construction of poorly permitted dams has been a major cause of mortality for California's fisheries. In California's Central Valley, they currently block Chinook salmon and steelhead from more than 90 percent of the historical spawning habitat. My amendment will help protect my State's economically important fisheries from further harm. Commercial fisheries from my home State sustain thousands of jobs across California and the West Coast, and, currently, we have what can only be described as a fisheries crisis. Many fisheries are at record-low population levels. According to some estimates, 78 percent of California's native salmon will be extinct or disappear within the next century if current trends continue. Simply put, many West Coast fishermen and fisherwomen who depend on California's fish runs are hanging on by a thread. The thousands of fishermen and fisherwomen, and other employees of restaurants, hotels, and other businesses that depend on healthy fish runs, have been struggling mightily. Even now, many fishermen and fisherwomen are still recovering from the total closure of the ocean salmon fishery along the West Coast in 2008 and 2009, because of poor California salmon returns. The closure devastated the Pacific Coast fishing industry and, ultimately, required millions of dollars in disaster aid from Congress. In recent years, fishery managers have also had to severely restrict commercial fishing season because of low population levels. My amendment will help prevent future harm to people who are already struggling just to get by. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from northern California (Mr. Huffman).

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record three letters, including one from the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, which is the largest organization of commercial fishing families on the West Coast, collectively representing thousands of family-wage jobs and the West Coast commercial fishing industry that contributes billions of dollars to the U.S. economy, strongly opposing this bill, H.R. 1654, and supporting the amendment. Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, June 12, 2017. Dear Representative: The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA) is the largest organization of commercial fishing families on the West Coast, representing the interests of hundreds of family-owned commercial fishing operations who harvest and deliver fresh seafood to American consumers and for export. Collectively, we represent many thousands of family wage jobs and a West Coast commercial fishing industry that contributes billions of dollars to the U.S. economy. On behalf of the hundreds of hard working commercial fishermen we represent, we are OPPOSED to H.R. 1654 for many reasons, among them the following: While the concept of streamlining permitting for federal water projects is attractive on its face, our primary problem in the arid west is not a lack of water storage projects, but lack of funds for maintaining and repairing the many existing projects that are already in place. Hundreds of existing water projects are badly in need of repair, with many dangerously close to failing. And as we recently witnessed with the catastrophic failure of the Oroville Dam, an ``expedited review process'' like what is envisioned in H.R. 1654 could lead to poor or rushed impacts analyses potentially resulting in further catastrophe or economic disruption. It is now apparent that the Oroville Dam's 2017 emergency spillway failure was predicted--but the warning signs were ignored--in its expedited environmental impacts review process. H.R. 1654 is simply the wrong approach. It would undermine existing laws protecting both the public and public resources by making the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) the lead agency for all environmental reviews, in effect leaving Reclamation in control of the entire environmental review process. However, Reclamation has neither the expertise nor the capacity of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service to inform the development of major infrastructure projects to reduce their impact on valuable wildlife and fisheries. Under H.R. 1654, these agencies would be stripped of their authority and duties to oversee and authorize water storage projects, to the detriment of the people of the West and the American taxpayer. H.R. 1654 also implements overly restricted and burdensome project review timelines, including provisions that would require expedited review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)--timelines that may be inappropriate for very complex projects like the damming of streams and rivers. These fast-tracking provisions interfere with the ability of agencies and the public to meaningfully analyze proposed complex projects, and could also limit the public's ability to weigh in on infrastructure developments that could affect communities for decades. Further, the bill permits non- federal public entities to contribute funds to expedite project permitting, raising serious conflicts of interest questions about the fairness and impartiality of the federal review process. H.R. 1654 also establishes perverse incentives for western states to cede their independent authority. Under the new regulatory scheme, state agencies could be compelled to adhere to the bill's procedures, thereby requiring those state agencies to cede control to Reclamation and comply with its timelines. This weakens the essential and independent role that states play in reviewing proposed water infrastructure projects within their borders. We sincerely request that you vote NO on H.R. 1654. This bill will not solve the problems it purports to address, and it would have widespread consequences far beyond water deliveries and water storage, including adverse effects to regional and local fishing industry economies and the jobs and communities those economies support. Sincerely, Noah Oppenheim, Executive Director.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor consumed by great sadness. Yesterday's attack, as we have all heard, was an attack on the entire United States Congress. It is even more tragic that this attack occurred during a practice for one of the most bipartisan traditions in the Congress. I stand here with my colleagues hoping for a speedy recovery for my dear colleague, Representative Steve Scalise. My thoughts and prayers are with him, but also for all of the others that were injured, for all of their families, and for all of their loved ones. It is clear we all know that, without Capitol Police on duty with Representative Scalise, there would have been many more victims. I want to express my deepest gratitude to those officers who put their lives on the line, but I also want to pray for them and all those who were injured. I ask and I hope for their speedy recovery.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, after a life of service to both the Republic of Vietnam and to the Vietnamese American community in Southern California, Nhon H.T. Nguyen passed away April 18, 2017 at the age of 91. Nhon was born in 1927 in Hue, Vietnam. She joined the military finance administration in 1950 and transferred to service at the Nguyen Tri Phuong Military Hospital in Hue in 1957, where she was eventually promoted to the rank of First Lieutenant. It was during her service at the hospital that she witnessed the sacrifices and loss of disabled soldiers, which motivated her to dedicate her life to serve disabled veterans, war widows, and children of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Vietnam. In 1967, Nhon transferred to the Women Military Institute and Training Center, where she rose to the rank of Captain and was appointed to serving in the Women Military Bureau at the Joint General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Vietnam. Two years later, she was promoted to the rank of Major and named as the Head of the Research Department. In 1972, she transferred to the Republic of Vietnam Air Force and was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. In early 1975, she was honored by the Republic of Vietnam with the Knight Decoration of the National Order of Vietnam (De Ngu Dang Bao Quoc Huan Chuong) for her twenty-five years of service to the armed forces. Following the Fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975, the Communist government imprisoned her in numerous ``re-education camps'' such as Long Giao, Quang Trung, Hoc Mon, Z30D, Ham Tan, and Long Thanh, where she was forced to perform harsh labor for four years. In 1990, Nhon and her family resettled in the United States under the HO2 program (Humanitarian Operation), and they have been living in Orange County, California since. Shortly after arriving in the United States, she joined the Former Political Prisoners Mutual Assistance Association, providing help to resettle South Vietnam veterans to the U.S. In 1996, she joined the Republic of Vietnam Disabled Veterans and Widows Relief Association as the Secretary General. After a decade of service, she was unanimously elected President of the organization by all its members in 2006. Under her leadership as President, the RVN Disabled Veterans and Widows Relief Association, in partnership with SBTN and Asia Entertainment, organized a total of ten ``Cam On Anh'' Benefit Concerts, with all of the proceeds going toward assisting disabled South Vietnam veterans, widows and their children who are still in Vietnam. Along with her lifelong career of military and charitable service, Nhon was an outstanding Vietnamese Girl Scout and a Scout Leader, joining Girl Scouting in 1941. Despite the difficult circumstances during the war and being in military service, she always lived her life embodying the Scouting values and helping younger Scouts whenever necessary. She also became a founding member and advisor in 2004 of the Lang Bach Hop Quang Te Scouters Association of Southern California. For her merits and contributions to the Vietnamese Scouting Movement, the International Central Committee of Vietnamese Scouting awarded Nhon the Bach Hop Medal in 2012 and the Bac Dau Medal in 2016--the two highest awards given by the organization. When asked in a 2011 interview what motivated her to continue her volunteer work to support disabled RVN veterans in Vietnam, she said ``I feel happy when I am able to join the Vietnamese community and organizations in organizing the Cam On Anh Benefit Concert because of the fraternal love and brotherhood. As soldiers, that sentiment is very strong. I imagine the happy moment when they receive our assistance, when their children have a little bit more to eat, to wear, and their family feels a little bit more warmhearted when they see fellow compatriots overseas are still thinking of them and their sacrifices.'' Nhon is survived by her children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, this Sunday, April 30, marks 42 years since the fall of Saigon, commemorated as Black April in Vietnamese- American communities across the United States. Along with Congresswoman Lofgren, Congressman Correa, and other colleagues, I introduced a resolution in remembrance of this event, recognizing the service of U.S. Armed Forces and South Vietnamese forces, and honoring the contributions and sacrifices of Vietnamese Americans. This community, started by refugees, has prospered and thrived, giving so much back to this country. They continue to fight tirelessly for the basic human rights of people in Vietnam. I will continue to be a voice for Vietnamese Americans in Congress and for the rights of the people of Vietnam.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, yesterday Representative Fitzpatrick and I introduced a bipartisan resolution calling on the House to commit to the removal of political gerrymandering from congressional redistricting and to improve the public confidence in our electoral process. Every citizen in every State deserves to have the same ability as citizens in States like California, Arizona, Hawaii, and Ohio, who now have to draw their Congressional district boundaries without the influence and gamesmanship of politics. The political gerrymandering of our congressional districts, which attacks at the very bedrock the right of every American to fair representation, has seriously undermined the public's trust in our democratic system. Mr. Speaker, it is time to get the back room out of the ballot box and let the people decide.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I am a proud co-sponsor of House Resolution 162, which will designate March 21, 2017, as National Rosie the Riveter Day. This honor has special significance for the City of Long Beach, California which I represent. Long Beach is one of two locations in the nation that has a park dedicated to recognizing and preserving the history and legacy of the working women, including volunteer women, of World War II. The Long Beach Rosie the Riveter Park was dedicated in March 2006. It is a 3.2 acre park that is just steps away from where tens of thousands of women worked at Douglas Aircraft Company during WWII, assembling the planes and bombers that helped our brave service members win the war. It is also located near what was the Long Beach Airfield (now the Long Beach Municipal Airport), where during WWII Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASPs), commanded by 24-year-old Barbara Erickson, flew the finished warplanes to military bases around the world. The Long Beach Rosie the Riveter Park was inspired by former Long Beach City Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske, author of the book ``Rosie the Riveter in Long Beach,'' and designed by public artist, Terry Braunstein. It features a rose colored walk-way that winds through the park so that visitors can see photographs depicting the work and efforts of these women. Visitors can access a narrated tour via cell phone and hear the song by the Four Vagabonds--``Rosie the Riveter'' that gave these women their collective and affectionate name. At both ends of the park are a ``compass rose'' that have been etched and painted into concrete, marking the location of the park. At the north end of the park are both a military memorial and wall with plaques commemorating the lives of those who have served our country in so many ways and outlined with a rose garden in the shape of a ``V'' for victory. The Long Beach Rosie the Riveter Park displays one of only two bas reliefs sculpted by Raymond Kaskey, who designed the same for the National World War II monument, here in Washington, D.C. Last year, C-SPAN, in its ``Cities Tour,'' featured the Long Beach Rosie the Riveter Park because of its role in honoring the women who contributed on the home front during WWII. As we celebrate ``National Rosie the Riveter Day,'' let us continue our efforts to recognize and preserve the history and legacy of working women, including volunteer women during World War II, as a way of promoting cooperation and fellowship among all American women and their descendants.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, since 2013 I have flown the pride flag outside my D.C. office in solidarity with the LGBT community. According to the House historian, I was the first to do so, a fact that I am very proud of. Yesterday, outside my office in Washington, D.C., a man took that flag out of its holder, threw it on the ground, and stomped on it. He called the flag disgusting and immoral. This flag is a symbol of pride for the LGBT community--an international symbol of love, understanding, equality, and hope. The shadows of intolerance have grown longer in recent days: bomb threats called into Jewish community centers, desecrations of Jewish cemeteries, hate crimes against minorities and the transgender community, horrifically racist statements from a Member of this body. To all our brothers and sisters who endure through these hateful acts, we stand with you, and we will continue to fight for your rights and your equality.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to stress the importance of maintaining Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, commonly known as DACA. DACA recipients were brought here to the United States as children, and in most cases America is the only home they have ever known. They want to contribute to our economy, to our society, and our country; and they will, unless we are foolish enough to stop them. Taking any step against DACA would not only hurt DACA recipients, it would hurt the United States. Let's protect these promising youth and keep this program intact while we work out a humane path to citizenship.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, from the mother of four with a preexisting condition to the family of a young boy who can now afford health insurance for the first time--we have heard constantly and over and over how the Affordable Care Act has saved lives. The Affordable Care Act provides quality, affordable insurance to millions of Americans. For example, just in my district alone, nearly 100,000 people who are now covered through the Covered California exchange or through the Medicaid--which is in California Medi-Cal--expansion, they stand to lose coverage if the Affordable Care Act is repealed. It is completely irresponsible to speak about repealing the Affordable Care Act with no replacement. I urge my colleagues to think about their own constituents before doing so.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, last week, Congressman Steve Chabot and I, as the co-chairs of the Cambodia Caucus, called upon Secretary Tillerson and the administration to prioritize human rights, democracy, and the rule of law in Cambodia. Just days later, Sam Rainsy, the leader of the opposition party in Cambodia, resigned in the face of a proposed bill that would dissolve the opposition party if he continued to lead the party. This law on political parties would give the government far-reaching powers to suspend political parties at will. I urge the Cambodian National Assembly to set aside this undemocratic law that dangerously moves Cambodia toward being a one-party state, and to allow the Cambodian people to freely choose their own leaders.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

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. How about the point that is made at the oil and gas companies' insistence that they are making great strides in reducing their own methane emissions so they don't need additional oversight? Members, that is a myth as well. Oil and gas producers in the field emitted 45 percent more methane in 2014 than they did in 1990. In fact, methane emissions from oil and gas producers went up 21 percent in the past 24 years. The majority also says this is a power grab, an effort by BLM to take power away from the States, except that the BLM has regulated venting and flaring since the Carter administration. And this has not stopped States from setting their own regulations, as I have just said that Colorado has done, which they will still be free to do under this rule. In fact, despite all the complaints about one-size-fits-all regulations, companies still have to follow State regulations when they operate on Federal land. Mr. Speaker, none of these arguments against the regulation hold any water, but the benefits of this regulation would be huge: enough gas saved to supply up to 740,000 households each year; the reduction of an estimated 185,000 tons of methane emissions, which would have the same impact as taking nearly 1 million cars off the road; and up to $14 million each year to the American taxpayer from additional royalties, and that number could be even larger if the price of natural gas increases, which the majority is trying to do by expediting natural gas exports. The BLM methane waste prevention rule is a win for the taxpayer, a win for the environment, a win for the climate, and a win for common sense. That is why it is supported by over 80 percent of voters in Western States, including both Democrats and Republicans, according to a poll just released this week. If my colleagues have not seen that poll, I would be happy to share it with them. Unfortunately, the Republican antiregulatory, antitaxpayer, antihealth, antienvironment machine must be continually fed. Earlier this week, they voted to strip clean water and transparency regulations. Today, they are going after clean air. I ask my colleagues to stand up and put a stop to this, to speak for the ordinary Americans who don't own oil and gas or coal companies, which those companies donate immense sums of money to politicians. The industry has to do its share and not simply demand that the farmers, the ranchers, the sportsmen, the conservationists, and all the rest of us have to put up with their waste in the name of higher profits. I ask my colleagues to do this by voting ``no'' on H.J. Res. 36. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).

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.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have 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. 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.