tv U.S. House Meets for Legislative Business CSPAN February 1, 2017 2:00pm-4:01pm EST
balance, which this agency does not have authority to do. it also puts us at risk of litigation on a takings issue. there is precedent for that, it could happen again, all because of this ill defined and unnecessary rule an regulation. and if we roll it back, there's still protection. there will always still be protection. a department of interior study clearly said that 93% of all the impacts has already been taken care of and does not actually exist. it would be easy for us to do and would put us back to a rule established in 1983 that is effective in protected these areas. 93% of these streams have no impact by this whatsoever. it also clearly says under the report that when this was done, this rule was being done, the states who are legally supposed to be coordinated and be a part of the process were shout out of the process. one of the reasons they are still suing. which means the memo of
understanding sign by those states was ignored by the agency in coming up with this rule. and that states who regulate 97% of the nation's coal production, states and tribes who have it in line, they are ready to move forward with it, they were simply shut out of the process. it's a poor process. there was a former icob of this body, a great -- icon of this body, a great member, who allegedly said, if you plet let's me make the procedure, i'll screw you other every time. this is poor procedure that has pr deuced a poor rule which will result in poor policy. . at best it this rule is redundant. it's clearly unnecessary, and it does have the potential of having hurting people nefariously when it does not need to. i thank you with my time expired so i won't yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong opposition to this resolution.
i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong opposition on this resolution which would put coal company profits ahead of clean water and public health. the stream protection rule has been in development for seven years and puts in place modest, commonsense protections for people who live near coal mines. this isn't just a rule to protect streams. this is a rule to protect people's health, to protect people's home and to protect the clean water that they rely on. these folks felt strongly enough about this rule to submit public comments. the rule is designed to protect people like danetta from west virginia who nearly lost her life when chemicals from coal fields found their way into her water supply and interacted with her medication in such a way that it nearly destroyed her liver. the rule is designed to protect like john from alabama who reports lakes that have turned gray and streams that have
turned orange. this rule is designed to protect people like david from tennessee who watched a creek near his grandmother's home become a lifeless -- become lifeless due to strip mining nearby. this rule is designed to protect people like josh from north carolina who could no longer fish in the streams near a family home and wants coal companies to be held accountable for the damage that they did. this rule is designed to protect people like juanita from kentucky, a coal miner's daughter whose water supply is tainted with heavy metals and other toxins from the coal sludge. she wrote, coal put the food on my table. it also put the poison in my water. reasonable tradeoff? i don't believe that juanita or anyone else should have to make that tradeoff? no one's water supply should be sacrificed in the name of higher bonuses for coal company c.e.o.'s. but they made it their
overriding goal to kill this legislation and after spending nearly $50 million on political campaign contributions over the past six years, they now have a congress and a president to do it. for the first time in 16 years and just the second time ever, republicans are going back to newt gingrich's playbook and trying to successfully use the congressional review act simply because the coal industry feels like it shouldn't be held accountable. but as we know this is only the first of five regulations that we'll be repealing just this week. later today, they're going to get rid of the rules required to increase transparency on the part of oil, gas and the mining industry. and later this week, we will be fighting for the right of oil and gas companies to pollute the air with methane. this is the republican agenda in the age of trump, an attack on clean water, an attack on clean air, an attack on transparency, and an attack on human health.
if you're a c.e.o. or a wealthy republican donor, this is great news, and you'll love the next couple of years. but if you're an ordinary american that depends on their government to hold companies accountable through tough but fair enforcement of regulations, you should be extremely worried. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from ohio three minutes to explain his motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for three minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. make no mistake about it, the stream protection rule is not about protecting streams, it was designed for one purpose, to regulate the coal mining industry out of business. mr. johnson: it's the centerpiece of the obama administration's war on coal. the simple truth is revealed when you begin to follow the office of surface mining's seven-year approach to this
job-killing rule, after the previous administration discarded the rule's predecessor. a 2008 regulation that underwent five years of extensive environmental review and public comment. that was just the beginning. since then, millions of taxpayer dollars have been needlessly spent developing this rule. contractors were hired to help rewrite the rule, but then subsequently fired when it was leaked that the initial revisions of the rule would cost thousands of jobs. and that was within the first few months of this attempted rewrite. unfortunately, estimated job losses have only skyrocketed since the final rule was released. what's troubling is that throughout the rule's rewrite, the administration refused to visit mines or to actually assess the impact of the rule on operating mines. there were attempts to cover up data that concealed the rule's true economic impact. the office of surface mining
also repeatedly refused to provide congress with important documents it used to develop the rule while keep state-regulating agencies charged with implementing this onerous rule in the dark and at arm's length throughout the entire rewrite. now, after seven years of this politically motivated rewrite, the previous administration issued the final rule as they were leaving town well after the american people, particularly those men and women in coal country, had sent a clear message to washington, politically motivated attacks on the livelihood of those who keep the lights on will not stand. the issuance of this rule, after all these facts are considered, proves what i said earlier. this rule is about one thing, regulating the coal industry and putting thousands of hardworking americans that depend on the coal industry for their livelihoods in the unemployment line. no one cares more about our
streams that run through coal country than those who live there, and no public official knows better how to create a balance of protecting both jobs and the environment than those serving in local and state governments that represent coal-producing communities. certainly, not beltway bureaucrats in washington. i look forward to what i hope to be and should be a bipartisan vote supporting today's important resolution. thank you, mr. speaker, and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you. i'd like to yield to the gentleman from california, mr. lowenthal, the ranking member of the energy and minerals subcommittee on natural resources, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. lowenthal: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to -- today to oppose house joint resolution number 38.
the science is clear, clear. mountain top removal mining is harmful to the health of people who live near these mines. anyone with a computer can go to google earth and see the tremendous scars on the landscape from mining companies that blasts the tops off mountains and then dumped the waste into the valleys below. but largely invisible to the naked eye is the suffering of people who live in the nearby communities because of these harmful practices. the stream protection rule will protect hundreds of vulnerable families and children who live near these sites from lung cancer, heart disease, kidney
disease, birth defects, hypertension and other health problems. if the majority has a problem with this final rule, as they say they do, they should hold a hearing in the natural resources committee to discuss its merits. there we would have an opportunity to talk to the administration and hear from those that are most affected by mountain top removal mining. but no. instead they decided to bypass regular order, go straight to the congressional review act which will take a chainsaw to this commonsense pollution rule. this is a reckless approach. i urge my colleagues to take time to listen to the voices of the american people. please put the health and safety of american families
first and vote no on this reckless resolution. thank you and i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield to mr. jenkins of west virginia, someone who has forgotten more about coal than i will ever know, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. jenkins: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, i rise in support of this resolution. like so many folks, i've been fighting this misguided rule for years. miners have been fighting this rule for years, and states, bipartisan, democrat and republican, have been fighting this rule for years. stopping this rule matters to west virginians, to our miners, to our families, to our consumers. we produce 95% of our electricity from coal. it's reliable and it's
affordable. coal employs 20,000 west virginians and tens of thousands more make their living related to coal. the loss of a coal job and the closing of a coal mine affects us all. its tax revenues pays for our schools, police and fire departments and puts money in the coffers of our local governments. this rule would cost cities and counties $6.4 billion in tax revenue over a year. with the decline in the coal mining. that means even more cuts. when we lose coal jobs we lose other jobs as well. when coal families lose a paycheck, they aren't able to buy goods and services like they used to. that hurts small businesses, our shops and our restaurants. it's estimated that this rule would kill 281,000 coal jobs
and jobs related in other fields. my state can't afford to lose any more jobs, and i know that goes for other coal states. however, despite these facts and the objections of a dozen states, more than a dozen states, the office of surface mining adopted a go-it-alone approach. they ignored input that contradicts their agenda. they withheld information on the rule and restricted states from reviewing it. well, that ends today. i want to say thank you to chairman bishop, thank you to the house natural resources committee and the leadership of the house for their support on this resolution. thank you, senator capito and leader mcconnell, for your leadership in the senate. e also have the support of the white house on this resolution. with a simple majority vote in the house and the senate, we will end this rule and stop
this job-killing, anti-coal agenda. i urge support on this joint resolution and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: it should be noted for the record the republican majority conducted a four-year investigation into the development of this rule and holding 12 hearings, issuing two subpoenas, collecting 2,500 hours of audio recordings and 13,000 pages of documents but were unable to uncover any political interference or misconduct in the development of this rule. i'd like to yield a minute and a half to the gentlelady from michigan, ms. brown. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from michigan is recognized for 90 seconds. ms. brown: mr. chairman, i rise today in strong opposition to h.j. resolution 38. this rule is much-needed update to existing mining regulations. it ensures that communities who reside by mining operations monitor water pollution levels.
i'm standing here today to continue to speak up and fight for clean water in america. i promise that i will stand up and make sure never get community will be poisoned by the water. i say to you, mr. chairman, that miners deserve clean water as well. it monitors -- this resolution monitors drinking water sources for pollution such as lead and other toxic substance and provides that information to the public. have we learned something from flint, mr. chairman? this rule will also protect land and forests by ensuring that companies restore the land and water sources that were impacted by owe precious occupation in our country and that's mining operations. let's defeat this resolution that provides commonsense
rulemaking, protects the environment and protects the rights of americans to have access to clean, safe drinking water while also creating jobs. i thank you and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i don't want to quibble over details but we held 13 hearings and passed four bills over the past three congresses about this particular and found countless problems with it. that's why we're here today. and to illustrate that i yield three minutes to the gentleman from west virginia, mr. mckinley, who knows the real impact on his constituents that this rule will have. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia veble for three minutes. mr. mckin ln: thank you. -- mr. mckinley: as chairman of the congressional coal caucus i rise today in strong support of this action. after eight long torturous years, our coal communities have endured a withering attack from washington, bureaucrats, focus on this agenda of
anti-coal. what's been the result? across this country in the coal fields of this country, 400 mines have closed down. 83,000 coal miners have lost their jobs. 246 power plants have closed down. and our utility bills, electric ue built bills have gone up 45%. then right before the president -- president obama left town, his administration punctuated its war on coal with this damaging further rule. this rule was nothing more than an organic manifestation of a washington bureaucracy drunk with power. if it's left unaddressed, this rule would shut down an additional number of coal mines and 78,000 men and women would lose their job because of this rule. for the last two years, our
coal caucus, bipartisan members, has made stopping this rule or number one priority. because it has nothing to do with the health of america. the safety of america, and the life of americans. simply put it was president obama's attempt to drive a final nail into the coffin of an industry that made america great. look, enough's enough. this war on coal has to come to a stop. and i think this elech treks -- this election set the tone for that. now that we finally have a president who understands the painful impact of excessive and unnecessary regulations, we should pass this c.r.a. as quickly as possible so he can sign it. it's time to give the families of the coal fields all across america a chance to get relief from the un-elected bureaucrats in washington.
mr. chairman, i thank you for your work in getting this. i thank you for the co-sponsorship that we have had with both johnson and jenkins to help us out on this to get this before us. but we have to do this for the people of west virginia and around the country. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: if there is a war on coal, it is being led by the natural gas industry who produces a cheaper product at a lower cost. and if there is any trouble that coal is in, it's directly attributed to the free market and that competition. let me yield three minutes to the ranking member, water power and oceans, natural resources, the gentleman from california, mr. huffman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. huffman: i thank the gentleman. i rise in opposition for this attempt to politically override the interior department's stream protection rule. much like the destructive mountaintop removal practice that this rule is designed to
prevent, this republican assault on the environment and the health of coal mining communities is a crude and dirty process. using the congressional review act, a single hour in congress is going to be enough to remove a rule that reflects seven years of national public debate, including at least 30 stakeholder meetings, over 100,000 public comments. this blows up the regular legislative and regulatory process. it ignores science and it marginalizes public health and puts communities at risk. let me be clear. when the coal dust settles on this devastating resolution, it certainly won't be members of congress who are left drinking polluted drinking water, or battling lung cancer, heart disease, and birth defects. much like the coal executives who profit from exhausting and polluting the natural resources of these communities, the g.o.p. will move on to the next target and look for the next way to let business off the hook. to let them externalize their
costs to the environment, to local communities, and ultimately to the u.s. taxpayers who have to lean up the mess. but communities in the appalachian mountains, vital salmon streams in alaska, much needed water supplies across this country will be left with dealing with the aftermath while our republican colleagues boast about having provided so-called regulatory relief. for all the talk about coal jobs from republicans and our new president, you would think they would care just a little about protecting the health of these coal miners and their families and communities. and yet when given a chance to protect the water quality of 6,000 miles of streams in coal country, this house is choosing to decide with the polluting industry instead. that's shameful and we should oppose this wrong-headed resolution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: thank you. i'm now pleased to recognize the gentleman from colorado who chaired most of our 13 hearings on this issue and represents a
state that is suing because they were ignored in this rule, where they should have had the rights under the clean water act, which is the problem we have here, gentleman from colorado, mr. lamborn. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. mr. lamborn: i thank the chairman. mr. speaker, on december 20, 2016, the stream rule was finalized in the last days of the obama administration by the office of surface mining reclamation and enforcement, o.s.m. ostensibly the rule is about keeping american waterways clean. in reality it's a power grab aimed at giving federal regulators more authority to make coal too expensive for anyone to mine or use. but no one should be surprised. in 2008, then candidate barack obama told the "san francisco chronicle" that while people would still be free to build a coal powered electricity plant under underhis energy policies, it would bankrupt them because of the high cost his regulations would impose. and that is exactly what president obama has tried to do. under the stream protection
rule, federal regulators will have expanded power to drop new standards that make it harder to get a coal mining permit. o.s.m.'s federal water standards would suddenly take precedents over the state standards that have long governed the industry unthe clean water act. the fish and wildlife service would also gain the power to veto coal permits. the aim is to take permitting power from states and impose a one-size-fits-all standard. when this process started, 10 states signed on to interior's rule making process as state cooperating agencies, but eight of the 10 later withdrew because interior wasn't interested in what they had to say. the subcommittee i chaired held 13 hearings to expose the flaws behind this rule. the rule provides no discernable environmental benefits while duplicating extensive existing environmental protections at both the federal and state levels. in fact, the rule's only purpose appears to be to support the environmental lobbies, keep it in the ground
platform, locking away up to 64% of our domestic coal reserves putting tens of thousands of americans out of work and raising energy costs for millions of americans. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the joint resolution of disapproval under the congressional review act. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from maryland and member of the natural resources committee,. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. >> i rise in opposition to h.j. resolution 38. today i speak against eliminating the department of interior stream protection rule. the proposed rule's about balancing the need to support our american coal industry with our responsibility to safeguard and protect our environment. mr. brown: what is most concerning and simply outreclaiming my timeous is that this bill proposes to not only overturn the stream protection rule, but would prohibit the interior department from ever issuing a
similar rule in the future even as technology advances and best practices to safeguard the environment improve. the rule, which was drafted over seven years, after 30 public meetings, and over 100,000 public comments, is the first major update to to surface mining regulations in more than 30 years, but is being rolled back without even a single hearing in this congress which doesn't follow regular order. mr. speaker, maryland has a rich history of coal mines. a history that predates our nation's founding, yet for decade we have witnessed a slow decline in coal production and a shift towards cheaper and cleaner sources of energy. nevertheless, the industry in maryland continues to employ hundreds of people, produce nearly two million tons annually, and coal is the leading export commodity leaving the port of baltimore. i support the coal industry in
maryland. but in maryland where the streams for our mountain panhandle, coal country fall into the potomac and eventually chesapeake bay, we have taken proactive steps to mitigate the environmental impact associated with mining, requiring companies to develop and follow wreck clameags plans, divert streams, treat acidic drainage with chemicals and control erosion and runoff. however our efforts and requirements haven't kept up with modern technology and innovative best practices and he proposed rules neighbors us -- enables us to achieve our environmental goals. the department of interior estimates the compliance cost will almost to a small percentage of coal industry revenues. there will be a minimal impact on mining jobs, and it will create good-paying green jobs. we'll protect 6,000 miles of streams, 52,000 acres of forests, and reduce 2.6 million more tons of carbon emissions.
mr. speaker, representing families in the chesapeake bay water shed, i understand firsthand that once the ecologies of streams, rivers, and pays are degraded, they cannot be easily reclaimed. now is not the time to turn back or turn our back on technology that's available and that's offered up in this rule. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: pleased to recognize the gentleman from arizona, part of our committee who has heard the 13 hearings, understands this issue, part of the house we voted four different times to be opposed to this particular rule, the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for one minute. mr. gosar: mr. speaker, there is no question that president obama put his own environmental legacy ahead of the well-being of the american people. the obama administration squandered taxpayer money for eight years, attempting to force the stream protection rule down our throats. the deception and lack of transparency utilized to implement this rule were
unprecedented. along with manipulating job loss numbers, the administration even changed the rules ruhle's name thinking the american people might forget about it. but the fact is you can't put lipstick on this pig. whether you call it the stream buffer zone rule or stream protection rule, it still stinks. american people who want good-paying careers have missed out on luns of thousands of jobs around the country as rault of president obama's ideologically driven war on coal. today is a new dawn in america. and this job-killing midnight regulation is now directly in the crosshairs of the trump administration and of this congress. on behalf of all the hardworking americans, i urge my colleagues to vote to support this commonsense legislation. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. beyer, a member of the resources committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. beyer: thank you, mr. speaker. with respect i quote mr. mckinley, we have to do this to
the people of west virginia and those around the country. and i agree. and this is why we need the stream protection rule. it's a commonsense approach to minimize the impacts of surface water and ground water from coal mining. mountaintop removal has been the responsible for the destruction of 2,000 miles of streams. peer reviewed studies have linked this to cancer, birth defects, and serious health problems for residents living near these mining sites. just look at my virginia map, the highest death rates in the state, the most chronic diseases are in the coal fields. i have seen this firsthand while i was lieutenant governor of virginia for eight years hen mountaintop removal mining was high. that's why this is important. communities in have a right to know what's in their water because it affects their livelihood and life span. it includes monitoring of streams. monitoring restoreses for plueyaunts such as lead and others. this is essential given their
potential impacts on human health and the environment. the rule also requires the streams to be restored and this will result in the protection and restoration of approximately 6,000 miles of streams and 52,000 acres of forests over the next two decades. this is important because we know that contamination of streams by coal mining pollution threatens everything from fishing and outdoor recreation to small businesses like restaurants and farms that rely on clean, safe water. this rule is an appropriate balancing act between our energy needs and environmental protections. it's also appropriately flexible for coal mining companies. most importantly, the congressional review act doesn't make sense here, you want to trim a tree, you don't chop it down and bury it under cement so it will never grow again. the congressional review act is an extreme measure that will permanently damage the surface mining law. we heard that it was a product of more than seven years of work, and the chairman talks about the 13 hearings, but not one has been held in the 18 months since the rule was
proclaimed. the congressional review act discards the vast amount of work of the office of surface mining did in order to create this rule. mr. grijalva: i yield to the gentleman one minute. mr. beyer: the lack of clarity on similar rule makings, the agency may never take future efforts to update and improve surface mining regulations. even if you don't like this surface protection rule, disallowing for the protections near coal operations makes no sense at all. i urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: now it's a pleasure to recognize a person that's not on the committee but knows how silly this rule is, the gentleman from illinois, mr. bost, is recognize for a minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for a minute. mr. bost: mr. speaker, the obama administration anti-coal regulation was a solution to -- solution in search of a
problem. it wasn't intended to protect the environment. it was intended to put coal miners out of work and sadly it's been successful in achieving that goal. a study of the rule estimate it is would destroy more than one third of our coal jobs, and that nearly half of all coal resources would effectively be off-limits to mining. in addition, the o.s.m. rule has ignored clear congressional directives to share information with the states. if ever there has been a time for congress to act, this is it. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you. i'd like to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from virginia, a ranking member on the resources committee on oversight and investigation, mr. mceachin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mceachin: thank you, mr. speaker. -- mr. mceachin:: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition of this
resolution. just as i would oppose any measure that threaten the quality of our drinking water. clean drinking water is a fundamental health need and meeting that need is one of our most basic responsibilities in this congress. we must not put special interests ahead of the health of our constituents. the stream protection rule is very simple. it strengthens and clarifies existing water quality protections with respect to mining. it requires that affected streams be restored when mining is finished. it gives communities accurate information about water quality so they can best protect themselves from pollution. mr. speaker, these protections are not onerous, but their benefits are vast. we've seen in flint, michigan, and elsewhere the painful consequences when people lack access to safe drinking water. we must do more to prevent that kind of suffering and damage. mixing this rule would instead mean we are doing less. the stream protection rule is a product of careful years' long
process, countless stakeholders participated, two dozen meetings and regulators received tens of thousands of public comments. mr. speaker, this rule was crafted in the sunshine, but we're about to overrule it in the dead of night. after all that work, this resolution of disapproval did not even receive a committee hearing. mr. speaker, if this body is seriously going to weaken vital drinking water protections, then our american people deserve ample opportunities to inform themselves and to make their voices heard. this rush-through proposal denies them that opportunity. i find this measure to be very disturbing, and i find the process concerning and i urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle not to go down this path. mr. speaker, i thank you, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: it's nice to know that 2:30 is in the dead of
night. i yield one minute to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. rothfus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. rothfus: i took a mile-long 30-minute ride into a 3 foot high coal mine in western pennsylvania. i was reminded about the incredible work ethic of those in pennsylvania, the same work work ethic that built this and 20th the 19th centuries. this regulation has a single purpose, the demise of the coal industry and the thousands of middle-class jobs that depend on it. this regulation is the culmination is of former president obama's war on coal which provides tremendous quo cost. i care about the miners whose middle class jobs are at risk. i care about utility customers whose electricity bills will go up because this will take valuable american energy off-line. i care about the communities that are hurt when these coal mines close.
this country continues to make tremendous progress on cleaning up the environment, progress that will continue without this job-killing regulation. if you care about the workers, if you care about these communities, you will vote yes on this c.r.a. and block this job killer. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you. i yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from kentucky, mr. yarmuth. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. yarmuth: thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in opposition to this dangerous effort to block the stream protection rule, a commonsense proposal that has the potential to save lives and will improve the health outcomes and well-being of families over time throughout coal country. this bottle of, i guess you could call it a liquid, wasn't taken from an industrial waste site or from the runoff of a landfill. this came from the drinking
well of the urias family's home in pike county, kentucky. despite what it looks like, there is water in there, along with chemicals, toxic minerals and known carcinogens, all present in this family's drinking water because of mountain top removal. the mountain top removal process begins with beautiful mountains that look just like that. these are appalachia mountains near the west virginia-kentucky border. first, they raise an entire side of the mountain, tearing trees from the ground and burning down any plant growth. from there they use explosives to blast the tops off the mountains and push rock and dirt out, ultimately filling the surrounding streams and waterways with debris, blast materials and other dangerous elements and minerals that end p in the drinking water of the urias family and countless others throughout the coal country and this is what is left. as we've noted during our fight for funding to help the families of flint, michigan, dealing with water
contamination, this should not happen here in america in the 21st century. yet, families in coal country have been dealing with this for 40 years, so you can imagine how many people's health has been jeopardized by this practice. the stream protection rule that the house is about to block would serve as one of the only safety measures that would protect these families from poison drinking water, higher rates of cancer, lung disease, respiratory illness, cardiovascular disease, birth defects and the countless negative health effects that plague this region. if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to block the stream protection rule, they should support my legislation, the appalachian communities health emergency act.our ache this will suspend mountain top permits until the department of health and human services can conduct a comprehensive federal study about the health effects
of this reckless mining method used in my state of kentucky and throughout coal country. i believe mountain top removal should be banned, but at a minimum, we should halt all new permits until the safety of the residents and the surrounding communities is assured. therefore, i urge my colleagues to oppose today's effort to block this potentially life-saving rule and support the ache act. we have failed to protect the families in these communities, and passage of this bill will inflict another blow to their health and well-being. they deserve far better, and i'll make a final offer to my colleagues on the other side. if anybody wants to come and take a drink out of this, i'll withdraw for the ache act and vote for their legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from utah. i am pleased to recognize for one minute the gentleman from ohio, mr. renacci. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. mr. renacci: i thank the gentleman from utah. mr. speaker, in the waning days
of his presidency, the obama administration finalized the stream buffer rule, a final parting shot at the coal industry on his way out the door. not once did the office of surface mining visit and assess the economic impact of this rule on operating mines. in fact, in their analysis, they relied on hypothetical mines. these aren't hypothetical mines, and they aren't hypothetical jobs that will be affected. in the real world, this rule could mean the end of coal production in ohio and the end of thousands of good-paying jobs in countless communities like the one i grew up in. ohio will be directly impacted by this rule. 59% of our electricity comes from coal-fired power plants, and ohio's coal industry employs thousands of hardworking americans. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote to stop this rule, to stop the war on coal and to stop this rule which could cause hardworking americans to lose their jobs. i urge my colleagues to support this joint resolution of
disapproval on the congressional rule act and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: i reserve the balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i yield one minute to the gentleman from colorado, another state that was promised in the clean water act to have authority and was taken away by this simple rule. the gentleman gets one minute, mr. tipton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for one minute. mr. tipton: thank you, mr. speaker. the united states is blessed with a wealth of domestic energy resources, allowing us to develop safe, abundant, affordable energy to meet our needs. the third district of colorado has blue skies, clean water while maintaining a healthy amount of responsible development of oil, natural gas and coal production in its many communities. according to the energy information agency, coal accounted for approximately 60% of the electricity generated in colorado in 2015.
yet, this vitally important resource that provides energy and jobs to many homes have come under attack. backed by radical interests, the government has issued new rules under the guise of environmental protections but whose true intent is to bankrupt the coal industry with regulatory compliance. the stream protection rule is a solution in search of a problem. modern mining operations are already adaptive to avoiding impacts to watersheds as the office of surface mining shows. the industry is subject to a wide array of environmental statutes and regulations enforced by various federal and state cooperating agencies. i urge the passage of this resolution and encourage my colleagues to support it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to read a few minutes from letters of opposition to this resolution. the first comes from a coalition of 75 national and local environmental groups who are strongly opposed to this
bill. they write, the long-awaited rule provides local communities with information they desperately need about water pollution caused by nearby coal mining operations and includes several important protections for clean water and the health of communities surrounding coal mining operations. an attack on the rule is an attack on clean water and should be opposed. wildlife and sportsmen group are also opposed. the national wildlife federation writes, the stream protection rule is an important water quality rule for our nation. it seeks to empower state regulatory authorities to ensure coal mining and reclamation best practices, taken into account their unique regional distinctions and impacts local communities and wildlife. any effort to undermine the safeguards afforded by the finalized stream protection rule, a rule with years of stakeholder outreach and engagement, will be an attack on clean water and should be opposed.
one said, the rule is worthy, sensible effort to reduce the huge impacts of mountain top removal on coal mining on our appalachian streams and rivers. and it goes on and on. they all go on to point out the specific impact of mountain top removal mining on fishing and wildlife and sportsmen. mountain top removal mining practices create a survival risk for trout and other wild trout populations and impede efforts to restore brook trout n already degraded watersheds. with that -- with that, mr. speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: pleased to recognize one of the new members of our congress from the state of kentucky who realizes this rule is wrong on regulations and short on new protections for people, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. comb: i represent a coal
producing district whose economy has been devastated by the former president and his renegade of unelected bureaucrats' war on coal. they boasted -- one boasted she would put a bunch of coal miners out of work. she went on to say that the government would then essentially come in and put those hardworking out-of-work coal miners on welfare. well, mr. speaker, mycole miners don't want to be on government welfare. they want the government to get out of their way and let them work. because of senseless, onerous regulations like the stream protection act, the liberals in washington have succeeded in putting most coal miners out of work. i believe that with the passage of house joint resolution 38 and a sensible energy policy created and implemented by business people instead of bureaucrats, we can begin to put coal jobs back to kentucky and help revive the struggling economies in kentucky's coal
country. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. . the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: pleased to recognize one of the other members of our committee who served on for a long time and heard much of these arguments before, mr. lamalfa from california for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. lamalfa: thank you, mr. speaker and mr. chairman. i rise today in support of the pressure for -- measure for congressional disapproval of the rule. created under the guise of protecting the environment, instead has been harmful to american jobs. it attempted to cripple and industry, energy, that provided vast amounts of energy to states across this country for decades. my home state of california has a long history of mining that has led to incredible economic growth and job opportunities for many of my local communities. but one size fits all approach fails to provide any regulatory
certainty to an industry and denies important tax revenue from energy extraction to the american taxpayer. appreciate my colleagues bringing to this floor and hope we can sort through the rhetoric on this that would be against energy jobs of a very important segment across this country that supplies so much of our energy currently and can do it with safety and it a mine for redeveloping our economy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona virginia tech. mr. grijalva: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah virginia tech. mr. bishop: -- from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: the opposition to this bill goes coast to coast. now back to the east coast and recognize mr. yoho from the state of florida for a minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. yoho: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. i stand here today in support of the livelihood of aner tire region of our country, an industry that was unfairly targeted by the obama administration in pursuit of an ideological agenda to do away with our nation's abundant coal
resources. the previous administration targeted the coal industry and by extension the hardworking americans employed by the industry under the guise of protecting the environment. we all want clean air and water for our nation's posterity. -- prosperity, but this rule is so strict that it makes it impossible for companies to continue to operate. it results in layoffs, closed businesses, and ultimately an entire region unemployed. our nation is blessed with an abundance of natural resources and we should utilize them all. oil, hydropower, wind, solar, and yes, clean coal, too. we must be prudent about how we regulate our energy industries because when one sector is pushed out it's the moms anti-dads at the end of the month paying their electric bill that feels the impact the most. all americans will be affected, but it will be felt more by the once who can least afford t that is why i'm opposed to the rule and urge my colleagues to support this c.r.a. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona virginia tech. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. the use of the congressional review act has been categorized accurately as reckless and extreme. the c.r.a. was going to cause significant and lasting harm. if successful two things are going to a one, the regulation is void. and the agency is prohibited from issuing another similar rule ever again. and i mention that because this is about health. it is about the health of the people living around those mining operations. it is about mountaintop removal and the documented analysis that proves that it is a danger to health, contaminates water, and destructive to the environment. this rule -- it's curious we had all those 13 hearings. i stand corrected.
an investigation that went on in perpetuity, it seemed like, and yet once the rule was finalized and published in 2015, we never had another hearing on the item again. which begs the question, if the whole point was to delay and prevent this rule from ever taking effect, and more importantly make it susceptible to the congressional review act, mission accomplished on the part of the majority. but the long-term consequences of using the c.r.a. and rule designed to protect people's health, on a rule that's designed to make coal companies be transparent and disclose to the public, and a rule that every scientific analysis and the science is clear that this rule was, indeed there to protect both people and communities.
i think that is the permanent harm being done by this action today to deny the people in those communities, to return to past practice that is created the problem that we're dealing with, and that this rule attempted to address. that created that problem. and now we return to those times where unregulated mountaintop removal caused the destruction to both human beings an environment as we see as the legacy. it is not only disrespectful to the people of those regions, but it, again, puts their health, their well-being, of both the environment and humanity in that area at major risk. it is not only reckless and extreme to use the c.r.a., it is also dangerous. with that i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: can i inquire of my counterpart over there if the
reservations made -- are you out of speakers? with that i have a couple also that claim they are on their way down here. we're both tap dancing for a minute. may i also recognize for one minute the gentleman from kentucky, mr. barr, who clearly understands the situation this rule is presenting. the speaker pro tempo: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. barr: i thank the gentleman. i appreciate the opportunity to speak in favor of this congressional review act resolution. on behalf of the thousands of fellow kentuckians who have lost their jobs in the coal industry. in eastern kentucky, not far from where i live, it's not just a recession that they are experiencing, it's a literal depression of what's happening in eastern kentucky over the last several years. and this rule, this stream protection rule, would be the final death knell of a proud industry that has literally
powered america for over a century. and when i talk to the men and women of eastern kentucky about the prospects of losing even more jobs in an economically depressed place, it's just absolutely devastating. so i applaud the work of the committee. i applaud the work of this house to take this matter seriously. to end this regulation that would put even more of my fellow kentuckians in economic distress. instead of looking at environmental questions as a matter of -- need to have more government central planning, let's solve environmental problems in a different way through innovation and technology. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of this resolution providing for a congressional disapproval of the stream buffer rule. in my home state of illinois, coal production employs roughly 5,000 workers and the industry contributes $2 billion a year to our state's economy. in southern illinois these are some of the region's best paying jobs. unfortunately, this rule was one of the final shots the obama administration fired in their war on coal. unless reversed, this rule is directly going to hurt our illinois coal miners and those working at coal power plants and in the end consumers. those who pate utility bills in this contry. the last administration refused to work in good faith with the states when finalizing the rule, even after congress told them to do so in the 2015 omnibus bill. i have a letter here from the illinois department of natural resources in opposition to the rule, and i ask unanimous consent it be entered into the record. the speaker pro tempore:
without objection. mr. davis: in this letter they note that the office of surface mining, and i quote, failed to properly consult with the state of illinois anti-other states resulting in burdensome and unlawful -- a burdensome and unlawful rule that usurp state's authorities as intended by congress and demands congressional action. mr. speaker, rules like this are what the c.r.a. is all about and i ask for your support. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, allow me to take a minute of my own time here if i could. the stream -- stream protection rule has to be the poster child for the congressional review act's action. 400 changes to the biller. 400 changes in over 1,600 pages of regulations and there is no real new protection above what we were using since the reagan
administration. but it does, it does outline benefits. it does outline problems and potential problems for 70,000 people directly with their jobs. for 300,000 people whose jobs are threatened in a ripple effect, and, unfortunately, for everyone else, every time you turn a light on, you your costs will be exacerbated because of this particular rule. this rule affects the most vulnerable of our populations and it hurts them. it's time for us to realize it is time to stop making rules and regulations for an ideological approach and instead new rules and regulations that help people, not hurt people, as this particular one does. that's why this house on four different occasions over the last three congresses has voted against this particular proposal. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: continue to reserve, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: i'm ready to close when the gentleman from arizona is ready to close.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you very much. closing our opposition to this action being proposed by the republicans to eliminate the stream protection rule, is indeed an action that goes against fundamental science, goes against the public health of the american people, and in ose communities, and overall takes the congressional review act and uses it as a bludgeon to keep generations and enerations in those areas at risk in the health, the water, and general environment in the area. the issue of cost is an issue that comes up. the loss of jobs has been the creation of competition. not because of any proposed rule. and second of all, when we were
dealing with the horrors of black lung, dealing with issues of mine safety for coal miners, and the struggles that their unions had to go through to get mine safety and health care protection for their workers, those at the time i'm sure were considered cost factors on why not to do t the cost factor here is about human life. it is about protection of water. and i would suggest that that should be the priority of this congress and not embolding or enriching the mine operators and their profit line. with that, mr. speaker, i need to reserve. we have additional speaker that showed up and that would be the close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: let me yield to my friend, mr. defazio, yield
two minutes. to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for two minutes. mr. defazio: i thank my friend, the ranking member of the committee from arizona, representative grijalva. i have been involved for 28 years on the resources committee on these issues. now, it's simple what we're talking about here today. yeah, it's cheaper. if you blow the top off a mountain and dump it in the valley and you bury a stream, it's cheaper. ok. is that what we're all about here? the most destruct yuff -- destructive, least environmentally responsible, but cheapest way of doing things? if we're going to set the president here -- precedent here, can i think of a whole lot of other areas that relate to clean water, clean air, and things that are important to the american people and the sustainability of our environment that will go away. because it would be cheaper if we can just dump the waste out the backdoor of the factory, that's cheaper.
if we can just put whatever we want up the stack and people wear gas masks, that's cheaper. that's the major argument we're hearing today. this rule, 100-foot buffer, 100-foot buffer for toxic materials around streams is too expensive. it is cheaper, it is cheaper to blow the top off the mountain, get the coal out, and take all the overburden and other assorted stuff and dump it in the valley and bury the stream. the only problem is then it rains, and what happens when it rains? well, you can either cap that whole thing and make it impermeable and then have big runoff down stream, or as general happens, the water percolates down through all the waste and becomes a toxic flow. they say these are seasonal stream bus seasonal streams run into other streams. hen you get these toxic flows,
they go into other streams. i see this in my district, not from coal mines but from a company that improperly mined and left us with the waste. i've seen the miles of springs killed from the overburden of the mining that's done. this is an absurd place to say we're overregulating. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from utah is -- is recognized. mr. bishop: that was fortuitous, we had two other people show up here. i yield one minute to the gentleman, mr. gibbs, from the state of ohio. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. gibbs: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, in the last month firedice, president obama one last shot at coal. he made it difficult for an already-distressed industry to provide a reliable energy source for our economy. in reality the only thing he
tried to protect was the joves bureaucrats at the expense of hardworking americans. this rule adds no new protections. additionally, this rule could come close off -- could close off as much as half the u.s. reserves for mining the bureaucrats writing this rule don't understand the impact of this because in the seven years it took to write it, no one bothered to visit a mine. we cannot allow to simply to save the radical liberal agenda. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution of disapproval of yet another regulatory overreach by the obama administration. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. grijalva: i reserve, i'm eady to close.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is ecognized. mr. bishop: i'm ready to close. mr. grijalva: i urge a no vet. thes preden being set tonight by this house is -- by this house is a dangerous and extreme precedent that we will all come o regret and i urge a no vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves this egentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: i recognize the gentleman, the former chairman of the appropriations committee, mr. rogers, for a minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. rogers: i thank the chairman for yielding me this time. mr. speaker, president obama made it his mission to bankrupt the coal industry when he took office. and through a slew of job-killing regulations, he's nearly made good on that promise. his administration spent seven
years and over $10 million in taxpayer dollars writing the stream protection rule. even though the bipartisan 2016 omnibus appropriations bill directed the entireor department to engage with the states before finalizing this rule. the agency refused to comply, leaving crucial voices out of the rule making process. under this midnight regulation, at least half of the nation's coal reserves would be restricted from mining and one third of current coal-related jobs would be at risk. this would mean more devastating job losses in coal communities across the country. especially in kentucky. where we've already got nearly 13,000 miners out of work. it's time to end the madness. give our communities in the coal areas a chance to rebuild. i urge support of this resolution.
i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expire. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: mr. speaker, there's no other speakers, i ield back my time and -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: thank you very much. folk heard a lot of science which is appropriate since the group that made the rule refused to give us this edata think they used to make the rule. 93% of the sites are not having any impact on the streams and the other 7% we already have rules that cover them that do this protection. there's no real new protection in this particular act. the states that regulate 97% of the coal mines in the united states were shut out of the process which is why they are suing about it this undercuts
the state primacy provide in the surface mining control and reclamation act. what we are doing here today with this effort is to re-establish the article 1 authority that we have in the constitution by saying we are responsible for the policy. not some agency of the executive branch. adopting the risk resolution protects the rights of states tasked with regulating the coal industry within their borders and helps people. people are going to be harmed if this act is not repealed and actually go into effect. and the most vulnerable populations are the ones who will suffer the most because of it. because of that reason, it is right for congress to do our responsibility here and now and repeal this bad act that was done in secret that was not allowed to have the openness we've requested in the past and that is simply redundant at best, totally unnecessary, and does have harm that it does to real people. 70,000 direct jobs.
over 300,000 indirect jobs, as well as a higher cost to everyone who uses energy in this nation and with that, i ask my colleagues to support the resolution of disapproval, vote for its final passage and with that, i finally yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. 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. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: joint resolution disapproving the rule submitted by the department of interior known as the stream protection rule. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the joint resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. joint resolution is passed. mr. grijalva: mr. speaker, on that i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman request the yeas and nays? mr. grijalva: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the
yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this uestion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 71, i call up house joint resolution 41, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, united states code, of
a rule submitted by the securities and exchange commission relating to disclosure of payments by resource extraction issuers, and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill, the joint resolution. the clerk: house joint resolution 41. joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5 of the united states code of a rule submitted by the securities and exchange commission relating to disclosure payments by resource extraction issuers. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 71, the joint resolution is considered read. joint resolution shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by this echair and ranking minority member of the committee on financial services this egentleman from texas, mr. hensarling and the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters, each will control 30 minutes this echair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous
materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hensarling: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hensarling: i rise today in strong support of house joint resolution 41, introduced by the gentleman from michiganmark huizenga, the chairman of the financial services subcommittee on capital market securities and investment this resolution disproves a burdensome and controversial securities and exchange commission rule that places an unfair burden on american public companies that is not applied to many of their foreign competitors. virtually every day we hear from many americans about how this economy is just not working for them. it's just not working for working americans. americans like keith from dallas in my district who wrote me, i'm 53. i have a grown son who lives with me. it seems like the cost of everything keeps going up, yet wages do not keep pace, he wrote me, mr. speaker. the economic opportunities of
keith and millions of americans like him are not helped by top-down, politically driven regulations that give many foreign companies an advantage over american public companies. and that's exactly what this securities and exchange commission regulation that we're talking about today does. it forces american public mpanies to disclose an expensive proprietary information that can be obtained by their foreign competitor yoss, including state-owned -- competitors including state-owned companies in china and russia. this is just one regulation out of thousands and thousands that are burdening our companies, our job creator, and are costing our households by one estimate over $14,000 a year, mr. speaker. even though this is an s.e.c. rule, securities and exchange commission rule, section 1504 of dodd-frank has nothing, nothing
to do with investor protection nor anything else we were told the dodd-frank act was supposed to do. as the acting chairman of the securities and exchange commission has said this rule, quote, neither reforms wall street, more provides consumer protection, and it is wholly unrelated and largely contrary to the s.e.c.'s core mission. in addition, mr. speaker, the s.e.c. estimates that ongoing compliance costs for this rule $591 reach as high as million per year. it's an outrage, mr. speaker. that's $59 1 million every year. -- that's $591 million every year that could better be used to hire thousands more americans in an industry where the average pay is 50% higher than the u.s. average. literally, literally, we could be talking about 10,000 jobs on the line for this ill-advised rule. now this is significant.
given that millions of americans like keith from my district have not seen their wages increase while our economy has been sighmied under the obama administration. now, for those who claim that somehow, by rolling back this rule, that this undermines anti-corruption efforts, let me remind everyone that mr. huizenga's resolution that the foreign corrupt practices act which the s.e.c. and department of justice administer, already makes it illegal to pay former government officials when it comes to winning or maintaining business opportunities. and to further prove the point, mr. speaker, just this year, just this year, the s.e.c. has brought enforcement actions or settled four separate cases for violations of this anti-corruption law. so even without, even without this s.e.c. rule, fraud will still be fraud. corruption will still be corruption. and both will still be illegal. and the s.e.c. and the
department of justice will still have the authority to vigorously pursue those who break the law and hold them accountable, as they well should, so no one, mr. speaker, should fall for this false argument of our opponents. let's also remember that this joint resolution does not repeal section 1504 of dodd-frank. i wish it did. but it doesn't. rather, it vacates a flawed s.e.c. rule that mimics a previous rule that was already struck down by a u.s. district court. it is a rule that by the s.e.c.'s own estimates has taken 51 employees over 20,000 hours to promulgate, defend, and repromulgate. 51 employees, 20,000 hours, that could have been directed at rooting out ponzi schemes that could have been used to promote capital formation or make our capital markets more efficient. furthermore, this rule still goes far beyond the statute
passed by congress and mandates public specialized disclosures that cost more and more and is burdensome, more burdensome than the law requires. so mr. speaker, for those who religiously defend the dodd-frank law, they should be in vigorous support of what mr. huizenga brings to the floor today because the rule flies in the face of the dodd-frank act. . so when an agency exceeds its statutory authority, it is no longer regulating, mr. speaker, it's legislating. and all of us, republicans and democrats alike, should be able to agree that when the executive branch acts in such a manner, congress has a duty, a duty under article 1 of the constitution, to check this executive overreach. as such, this house should wholeheartedly support mr. huizenga's resolution. it simply tells the s.e.c. to go back to the drawing board. comply with the dodd-frank act.
and come up with a better role that will not put american public companies at an unfair disadvantage and cost us jobs. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: mr. chair, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. waters: h.j.res. 41 would rollback the s.e.c.'s rule that implemented an important congressional mandate in dodd-frank, requiring oil, gas and mining companies to publicly disclose payments made to foreign governments for access to their natural resources. that rule helps fight corruption in the ex trafficive industry -- extracting industry sector, provides vest drble investors with crucial information on the investors and gives citizens greater accountability for their governments for spending that serves the public interest.
it also helps to diminish the political instability in resource-rich countries, which is not only a threat to investment, but also to our own national security. specifically the disclosure rule enables shareholders to make better informed assessments of opportunity cost, threats to corporate reputation, and the long-term prospects of the companies in which they invest. in addition, opening the extractive industries to greater public scrutiny is key to increasing civil society participation in resource-rich countries, which are often underdeveloped countries that are politically unstable, reiff with corruption, and -- rife with corruption and with a history of corruption fueled in part by natural resources. moreover, the s.e.c.'s rule is a reasonable disclosure and places
no limits or restrictions on whose companies can pay money to. how much or what for. after five years of robust debate and input, the final rule accommodated a number of industry concerns, providing companies with the generous four-year phase-in period and a case-by-case exemption process for companies that faced implementation challenges. the s.e.c. also allowed companies to comply with the disclosure by using a report prepared for other substantially similar disclosure regimes. which include regimes in the european union and canada. furthermore, and nevertheless, rather, republicans continue to claim that the s.e.c.'s rule is harmful and let them tell it. it puts americans companies at a -- american companies at a
competitive disadvantage to their foreign competitors. well, mr. chairman, they're entitled to their own set of opinions, but they're not entitled to their own set of facts. i suppose these are alternative facts. the truth is that the u.s. companies are not the only ones required to make these disclosures. many foreign companies must report under the u.s. rules, including a number of state-owned oil companies such china's petrochina, that is brazil's petrobraz. also after the s.e.c. issued its in 2012, the rest of the world followed our lead. establishing a global standard for the public disclosure of extractive pamentes companies -- payments companies make to governments. a wave of transparency laws have been adopted in foreign markets that mirror the u.s. law. this includes legislation in the
european union, norway, and canada. which are all now in force. these laws cover the vast majority of oil, gas and mining companies that compete with u.s. firms. now, leading global oil companies like b.p., shell and ssia's state-owned companies are entering their second year of reporting under e. rumplet rules without any negative -- e.u. rules without any negative impact. so contrary to republican claims, u.s. and foreign companies already compete on a more level playing field here and abroad. therefore rolling back the s.e.c.'s disclosure rule would directly undermine the interests of extractive companies in having a level playing field. worse, once the rule is
nullified by this resolution, the s.e.c. would not be able to put another rule in place that is substantially similar. this would create different reporting regimes, directly contravening what companies have requested from the s.e.c. and the s.e.c. final rule accommodated industry concerns by including a generous phase-in period, u.s. listed companies are not required to report until 2019. the rule also provides for case by case exemptions if covered companies face any implementation issues. therefore the rule does not put u.s. companies at a competitive disadvantage, nor does it impose an unreasonable compliance burden. i would also point out to my republican colleagues the importance of the s.e.c.'s disclosure rule in protecting u.s. national security and
energy security interests. specifically it helps protect u.s. national security interests by helping prevent the corruption, secrecy and government abuse that has catalyzed conflict, instability and violent extremist movements in africa, the middle east and beyond. as isis demonstrated, non-state actors can benefit from trading natural resources in order to finance their operations. project level disclosures in the rule will make hiding imports from non-state actors more difficult, thereby limiting their ability to finance themselves with natural resource revenues. corruption and mismanagement of oil revenues destabilizes regions and leads to conflict. and resource-rich countries like
venezuela, iraq and angola, are considered to be among the top 10 countries perceived to be the most corrupt according to transparency international. in addition, transparency of russian companies and its extractive industry is critical. the s.e.c.'s rule would create transparency of exxon and other company payments to the russian government. companies are already disclosing under the u.k. rules and b.p. has already reported payments to the russian government. the s.e.c.'s disclosure rule will make a crucial contribution as russian citizens seek to follow the money received by their government. a vote to roll back the s.e.c.'s resource extraction disclosures would be a vote -- to abandon u.s. leadership in the fight against global corruption. i strongly urge my colleagues to
oppose h.j.res. 41 and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. speaker. i am pleased now to yield three minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. huizenga, the chairman of our capital markets subcommittee, and the author of house joint resolution 41. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for three minutes. mr. huizenga: thank you, mr. speaker. section 1504 of the dodd-frank act was like many other provisions that were ultimately included in the sprawling law. they had absolutely no relationship to the underlying cause of the financial housing crisis. however, some have used this financial crisis to hijack federal securities law in order to push a socially motivated agenda, specifically section 1504 of the dodd-frank act, which requires companies registered with the securities and exchange commission to annually report payments such as taxes, royalties, fees, production indictments and those types of things, made to foreign and u.s. federal government
relating to the commercial development of minerals, oils and natural gas. companies subject to section 1504 must report the type and total amounts of these payments made for each project as well as the type and total amounts of payments made to each government. these payments cover, as i said, taxes and other things that are really business expenses. while this may be a laudable goal, using federal securities law in the s.e.c. to enforce social issues is inconsistent with the s.e.c.'s core mission and completely inappropriate. just to remind everyone, the s.e.c.'s mission by law is to, one, protect investors. two, maintain fair, orderly and efficient markets. three, facilitate capital formation. i would liken what they're doing by having the s.e.c. put this rule in place, it's sort of like requiring your police department to be in charge of road repair too. it's just not their expert teels. the s.e.c. recognizes this fact and stated that section 1504,
quote, appears to be designed primarily to advance u.s. foreign policy objectives. not investor protection or capital formation. notwithstanding the merits of the underlying policy goals, in conducting more american foreign policy is not what congress created the s.e.c. to do. in fact, just moments ago the u.s. senate confirmed rex tillerson as the secretary of state. and i would suggest that we let him direct our foreign policy. with all due respect to the commissioners and the s.e.c. staff, none of them are really foreign policy experts. as we debate this resolution, let's be clear on what this isn't about. some have tried to argue that a vote to vacate this provision is a vote for corruption somehow. this couldn't be further from the truth. i understand and sympathize with the sense and the feeling of this, that this rule makes supporters feel better about themselves. but it does not solve the real world issues. the foreign rules that have been brought is up comparing apples
and oranges with the foreign rules. if we allow them to rewrite this particular rule, we might actually mirror what the e.u. and what other foreign governments are doing. so, despite the claims to the contrary, h.j.res. 41 does nothing to undermine the ability of the s.e.c. and the justice department to police against foreign corruption. in fact, both of these agencies still have at their disposal federal laws, including the foreign corrupt practices act, which prohibits bribing foreign officials. mr. hensarling: i yield the gentleman additional time. mr. huizenga: thank you, mr. chairman. even without this s.e.c. extraction rule in effect, fraud will still be fraud and corruption will still be corruption. both will still be illegal activities that should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. voting for this resolution is a vote to right the ship. it's a vote to reset the regulatory process. congress needs to send this flawed regulation back to the s.e.c. drawing board and instruct the s.e.c. to get the
provision right by promulgating an appropriate rule. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i now yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from new york, the ranking member of the subcommittee on capital markets, on the financial services committee, mrs. maloney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. mrs. maloney: i want to thank the gentlelady for her leadership and for yielding to me and for her leadership in so many areas, including her leadership on this bill. i rise today in strong opposition to the resolution which would repeal an s.e.c. anti-corruption rule. i fail to understand why anyone in this body would want to repeal something that helps us fight corruption. the s.e.c. rule would require companies registered in the united states to disclose the
payments that they make to foreign governments for the development of oil, natural gas or other minerals. unfortunately there is a long and very sad history of corruption where big oil or mining companies strike deals with foreign governments to extract their natural resources. and too often the money from the oil or mining company ended up going to pay bribes to corrupt politicians. and not to benefit the ordinary citizens of the country. the s.e.c. rule is intended to bring some basic transparency to these deals. that's all we're talking about. transparency. by requiring u.s. companies to disclose the payments they make to foreign governments, who the payments went to, how much they paid, who in the government got the money that should be going
to the people. it tells the people and the country where their natural resources money is going. this is just common sense. and it is outrageous and unbelievable to me that anyone would oppose simple transparency rules that combat corruption. i've been a long-time supporter of this rule. i spoke in favor of it during the dodd-frank debate, and i sent a letter to the s.e.c. urging them to finalize this rule as quickly as possible, which i'd like to submit to the record, and i was joined with roughly 58 of my colleagues in this letter. may i submit it to the record? the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. maloney: let's also be clear what the section's rules do not do. it does not -- what the s.e.c.'s rules do not do. it doesn't restrict who money is paid to.
it doesn't restrict how much money they can pay or what they can pay for. it doesn't stop corruption, it simply says you have to report it so that the people in the country and everyone knows what's going on. in fact, there was bipartisan support for this rule. the amendment to dodd-frank that required this rule was known as the cardin-luger amendment because it was co-sponsored by republican senator dick lugar. he was a longtime chairman of the senate foreign relations committee so he understood the negative impacts that these corrupt deals could have on developing countries. the only reason, and i repeat, the only reason, to vote for this resolution is to help corruption governments steal money from their people. i'm going to repeat this phrase because people were knocking me out of order. the absolute only reason, and i want to warn my friends on both
sides of the aisle, the only reason you should vote for this is to help corrupt governments steal money from their people. so i strangly urge a no vote. now, several of my good friends on the other side of the aisle have pointed out that the foreign and corrupt rule will take care of this. but the foreign and corrupt rule only covers bribery. it doesn't cover unjust enrichment. it doesn't cover governments stealing from themselves. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mrs. maloney: i aurge strong no vote and i'd like to place in the record other reasons why this is very bad for the ability to have people to act. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from missouri, ms. wagner, the subchairman of our oversight and investigations subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from missouri is recognized. ms. wagner: i thank mr.
hensarling for the time and i thank chairman huizenga for his leadership on this issue. i'm proud to co-sponsor the s.e.c. disclosure rule for resource distraction, an important tool for congress to use in disapproving excessive red tape brought by washington bureaucrats. the previous administration placed crushing regulatory burdens on the american people and in 2015 alone, federal regulations cost almost $1.9 trillion. early $15,000 per american family. this particular regulation, issued by the obama administration, regarding resource extraction disclosures, will make it more expensive for our public companies involved with energy production to be competitive overseas with foreign, state-owned companies. mr. speaker, i'm pleased to support this resolution of disapproval. the s.e.c. has estimated that on fwoing compliance costs for this
$591could reach as high as million annually. and fully admit that it has potential to divert capital away from other productive opportunities like growing business and creating jobs. securities law should not be used to advance foreign policy objectives, particularly when the compliance costs of implementing those objectives is so expensive work no add benefit of investor protection. while this rule has already been vacated by the u.s. district court of d.c., in 2013, i am happy that through this resolution of disapproval, congress, we the people, can now weigh in as well on this harmful rule. i urge passage of this resolution and i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield five minutes to the gentleman from illinois, a member of the financial
services committee, and the science, space, and technology committee. mr. foster. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. foster sprk thank you, ranking member waters, for yielding. i rise in opposition to h.j.res. 41 and in support of the s.e.c. rule requiring resource extraction companies to disclose payments to governments. historically payment for resources is a huge source of corruption in developing countries which for most of us is morally abhorrent. but what i want to talk about is the competitive advantage that we gain when we embrace the principles of democratic rule of law, transparency, and morality that our financial system depends upon. we passed dodd-frank to strengthen our financial system in a time of crisis but also to make it more transparent and effective for american consumers and investors. section 1504 of dodd-frank directed the s.e.c. to publish a rule requiring issuers to
disclose the types and amounts of payments for each type of project and to each government annually. the provision improved disclosures made to financial regulators and to investors. private and public institutional investors representing trillions of dollars invested on behalf of american families voiced support to the s.e.c. in favor of the rule. there are two main reasons for this support from institutional investors. first, all investors want to be able to review payments to all governments, to assess the exposure the issuer may have to corruption risk. the s.e.c. has jurisdiction over compliance with a foreign corrupt practices act and investors -- investors need to know whether fines for potentially corrupt payments could be levied against firms where they are considering investing. investors should always have the right to know material information about the firms and systemic noncompliance with the
law is always material. it should not take an event of noncompliance uncovered by the regulators to inform investors when simple transparency requirements like annual reporting of payments can alert them to the risk. secondly, some investors may simply want to stay away from investments in firms that make payments to certain governments. many resource-rich nations in the developing world lack a democratic rule of law and are often governed by oppressive regimes that exploit their land and environment, extracting resources for their rulers' financial gain at the expense of their citizens. investors have the right to know this information because they own the company, and may feel a moral responsibility for its action. for these two reasons, extractive payments are information crucial to an investor's analysis of an issue with securities. the united states equity markets
are the most efficient in the world. because we have strong disclosure laws and strong enforcement by the s.e.c. disclosure of payments made to foreign governments is a relevant factor in valuing securities and is crucial to avoiding a -- avoiding information which can and will be exploited. these disclosures enable a market to police an issuer by punishing questionable payments to governments with a devaluation of its equities. in short, there are three market-based reasons to disclose payments to foreign governments. first, these disclosures promote market integrity. second, they provide investors with crucial information for valuing securities. and third, they enable investors to make ethical, values-based decisions on where they allocate their resources, a right we should be enhancing, rather than eroding. so i urge my colleagues to vote no on h.j. rest 41. thank you and i yield back the
balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman jeeleds back -- the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from kentucky, mr. barr. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. barr: thank you, mr. chairman. section 1504 of the dodd-frank act requires the securities and exchange commission, an agency not charged with the responsibility of carrying out american foreign policy, to promulgate a resource extraction issuer disclosure rule that regulation which is the subject of today's resolution, requires publicly traded u.s. firms to disclose payments they make to governments for commercial development of oil, natural gas, and mineral resources. the intent of the rule, as my friends on the other side of the aisle point out is to allow local populations to see how much revenue is generated by their natural resources. but in practice, it full -- if fully implemented, this rule will have a negative impact on americans and the people it is
purported to help. first, the rule puts american firms at a severe competitive disadvantage. we talked about this before. because section 1504 applies only to companies listed on u.s. exchanges, it forces them to disclose payments in detail in a way that would put them at a competitive disadvantage to non-u.s. companies. companies like those located in china. and the s.e.c. estimates that initial cost of compliance for u.s. firms could be as high as $700 million and the on fwoing costs could be as large as -- and the ongoing costs could be as large as $591 million annually. that's $591 million that american businesses could be putting to better and more productive uses like creating jobs and investing in workers. the s.e.c. itself admitted the compliance costs would result in diverting capital away from other productive opportunities. in addition, these disclosures will include sensitive
commercial proprietary information and trade secrets that foreign state-owned competitors can use against american firms. and 50% of the firms likely to be obligated to comply with this rule are smaller reporting companies. while larger firms can more easily change their reporting systems to collect data or make the rule less burdensome, the smaller firms that will be forced to comply with this rule will have a very difficult time. this will lead to consolidation in the industry, reduction in competition, and higher prices for american consumers. these projects are often carried out in countries with underdeveloped economies. as a result they provide much desired work for local populations and help improve the standard of living in the area. lifting many people out of poverty this rule will stifle economic development in areas that need it most, potentially limiting these regions' ability to thrive. in conclusion, this is not about
investor protection. instead, it's going to undermine capital formation and hurt smaller firms and hurt jobs in this country. the securities and exchange commission is, as it admits itself, is not in a position to conduct american foreign policy. let's leave this to the state department and focus on s.e.c. rules that are core to its mission. investor protection and capital formation. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expire the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from wisconsin, the ranking member of the subcommittee on monetary policy and trade, on the financial services committee, ms. moore. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. moore: thank you so much, madam ranking member and i want to thank the speaker. i rise in strong, strong opposition to this legislation. that seeks to overturn carefully crafted s.e.c. anti-corruption rules for industry.
section 1504 requires gas and oil companies hied on u.s. exchanges disclose payments made to foreign governments. now, congress mandated these rules in dodd-frank and it was a bicameral decision, it was thoughtful, bipartisan, there were multiple hearings in both chambers and a conference report. these dodd-frank rules were the first of their kind and they have become the model for 30 other industrialized countries' own rules. these rules have been so necessary because of the so-called resource curse, where we have seen countries, particularly in africa, where they have lots of resources but there's widespread poverty because of the corruption of extractive industries.
and surprisingly, these companies have implemented them and they're currently complying with them globally. we have heard a whole lot of whining and frankly lying about how these regulations of cost -- have cost us jobs but certainly the obama economy has created a lot of prosperity. and in fact, mr. speaker, investors, investor advocates and asset management companies and civil society groups fighting corruption and instability support these rules. we should be supporting them. in fact, companies that have $10 trillion of dollars under management say that these disclosures help them with asset management. manage risk. now i'm not going to go in a long winded explanation related to ill list payments related to extractive industries to foreign governments. we know about them.
but i -- i guess that we're appalled by this vote, i guess it's the beginning of just going to -- we're going to be appalled for the next 1,500 days. it's not surprise, shouldn't be surprising, mr. speaker, that the friend and ally of russian leader vladimir putin now president trump's nominee for secretary of state, rex tillerson, lob beed against this very rule -- lobbied against this very rule when he was at exxon, specifically , he said it would hurt their russian operations. transparency will hurt exxonmobil's russian operations. and so the question that's got to be asked, mr. speaker, what does that mean? just the implication that transparency will hurt them.
just the implication that transparency is going to hurt putin's russia is proof that we need these rules. what payments to putin does rex tillerson not want shareholders and the american people to see? today we have -- we should be demanding more transparency and not less from the most conflicted president and administration in history. we are now trying to make transactions less apparent. all my colleagues should reject this bill. not only on substance, but as an abuse of the congressional review act. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. rothfus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. rothfus: thank you, mr. speaker. you know, we are all painfully aware that washington's financial control law, dodd-frank, is full of provisions that have nothing to do with protecting consumers or preventing another financial crisis. the s.e.c. rule in question
today is no exception. this politically motivated rule, tucked into a provision under the miscellaneous provisions of dodd-frank, fails to advance the core mission of the s.e.c. which is to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation. ensuring that payments by oil and gas and other mineral companies are transparent and accountable is a worthwhile public policy goal, but it's outside the securities laws -- securities' laws core mission of protection. not only should this fall outside the purview of the s.e.c., but the rule itself is fundamentally flawed. like so many rules and regulations emanating from dodd-frank, that harm our economy, it is more complex and costly than is required by statute, which calls into question the extent to which it meets the s.e.c.'s economic analysis requirements. the s.e.c. itself estimates the cost for compliance of between $239 million today 700 million initially and from $96 million
to $590 million annually after that. i am also concerned that this rule could force companies to withdraw from certain countries. among other things, some foreign countries have laws to prohibit the sort of disclosures called for in this rule, since the rule provides no exemptions, american firms may be forced to abeen done business ventures that provide jobs and opportunities for americans. i understand that some opponents of have tried to label the s.e.c.'s policy as an anti-corruption rule. it is important to keep in mind that nothing in today's resolution to repeal the rule undermines the ability of the s.e.c. or the department of justice to fight corruption. even without this rule, the foreign corrupt practices act remains in force and any corrupt activities by americans will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. the rule under consideration today, however, is unnecessary, poorly written, outside the core responsibilities of the agency it would impose significant
costs on publicly listed companies with no discernable benefits. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: thank you very much. i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, a senior member of the financial services committee, and the transportation and infrastructure committee, mr. capuano. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for three minutes. mr. capuano: thank you, mr. chairman. let's be honest, guys. leveling the playing field, capital formation, come on. all this rule was written for is to expose bribery. there is no line in any corporate report that says paid for bribery. it comes up as royalty fees. it comes up as gifts. it's bribery. pure and simple. every company in a foreign country is subject to it. especially a third world country, especially when it comes to natural resources, and we all know it.
if you think this rule is overbroad, yet you are still truly appalled by bribery, and the results of it, submit some other option for us to do it. that's all this rule was ever meant to do. give us an alternative. as opposed to simply repeal this. it's just like health care. you complain, complain, complain, but no alternative. give us -- i'm not -- look, honestly, if you put forth a proposal that says the corrupt practices act is now legal, it's ok to have bribery, but you have to report it, people like me might be open to it. understand, sure. >> i will point out, what my resolution does is it directs the s.e.c. to go back to the drawing board. it's not our job to write the rule. you're asking for that proposal. the s.e.c. wrote a rule, it got struck down by the courts -- mr. capuano: reclaiming my time.
i respectfully disagree. this prohibits them from doing it. number one. number two, you have an obligation. you have an obligation. if you don't like what exists, propose an alternative. that's the way this -- the world should work. every time we don't like something, we offer an alternative. you don't have to like the alternative. but there's an alternative offered. >> if the gentleman will yield. mr. capuano: yes, i will. >> i appreciate again you yielding on this. i'd be happy to write a rule. i'm not sure you would be happy with. it i'm not sure the s.e.c. would be happy with it. but again, having that debate here in the well of the house, i was not here for writing of dodd-frank. i'm dealing with the echo effects of it. and that's what we're trying to do right now. mr. capuano: reclaiming my time, i respect -- look, i respect your intentions on this. i understand the concept of a level playing field. if the chinese were bribing a third world country, we should be able to compete with them. if that's the case, make our companies allowed to bribe them.
as long as we know what's going on. i don't know how you're going to write that law. but i'm happy to work with you any time you want. here's the problem. bribery is insidious. it is secretive. it can't be found. the u.s. conference of bishops, now, i'm a catholic, i probably am not the best catholic in the country, i think we can probably all agree to that. but the basic tenants of the catholic faith -- ms. waters: i yield to the gentleman another minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. capuano: the basic tenants are pretty clear. here's what they write. one line from the u.s. conference of catholic bishops. where governance is weak and corruption is rampant, extractive industry revenue that is not transparent becomes a curse that deepens poverty, destroys democratic institutions, defrauds elections, and allows autocratic leaders to remain in power against the will of their
people. if you really believe that people around this world should benefit by true and open democracy, you have to provide them the opportunities to do that. i happen to agree with the bishops. if you want to allow our companies to bribe foreign governments, say it. i might actually -- i don't like it. but it's a reality of the world. they've been doing it for generations. that's all this attempt was. and to simply repeal it says it's open business day, guys. go in, pass the cash around, stick it to the regular people and don't tell anybody. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. members -- the gentleman's time has expired. members are reminded to direct their comments to the chair. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. tipton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from colorado -- the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. mr. tipton: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to thank my colleague
from michigan for offering the resolution under consideration today. this resolution of disapproval will repeal the s.e.c.'s resource extraction rule, which imposes burdensome disclosure requirements on public companies engaged in the commercial development of natural gas, minerals and oil. the s.e.c.'s mission is to protect investors, maintain efficient markets and facilitate capital formation. unfortunately the resource extraction rule is well outside the bounds of these mandates. which acting s.e.c. chair michael noted in his dissent of the rule, saying that it neither reforms wall street, nor provides consumer protection, and is wholly unrelated and largely contrary to the commission's core mission. when our businesses are being overwhelmed by compliance obligations, it is crucial that our regulators do everything in their power to ensure regulations do not actively disrupt growth by enforcing nonmaterial, socially motivated disclosures like those included in the resource extraction rule. the s.e.c. itself has admitted
that this rule will be costly. the s.e.c. estimates that the ongoing compliance costs for the resource extraction rule could reach as high as $592 million annually. and noted that the disclosure requirements could result in capital being diverted fwrea productive opportunity. an agency tasked with maintaining efficient markets, facilitating capital formation should not be promulgating unnecessary and burdensome rules like this. dodd-frank is full of examples like the resource extraction rule that require federal agencies to engage in rulemaking on topics outside of their experience and jurisdiction. in the future, i urge my colleagues to craft legislation in a bipartisan manner that only requires actions consistent with the mission of the applicable agency. until then, however, it is necessary for congress to exercise its oversight power to unwind these misguided regulations that have hampered economic growth. i'm happy to lend my support to this resolution and encourage my
colleagues to support this commonsense measure and would like to thank the gentleman from michigan for all of his efforts on this endeavor. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from california .s recognized ms. waters: mr. chairman, may i inquire as to how much time i have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady has seven minutes remaining. the gentleman from texas has 11 1/2 minutes remaining. ms. waters: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: meerks i now yield two minutes -- mr. speaker, i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. williams. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. williams: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. chairman, i rise today in strong support of this resolution, providing congressional disapproval of a rule submitted by the s.e.c. receipting to disclosure of payment by resource distraction issuers. this requires a public company engaged in the commercial development of natural gas, minerals or oil to report payments made to foreign governments for these natural resources. at a time when our president and my republican colleagues are looking to cut regulations on
businesses, the s.e.c. estimates that ongoing compliance costs for this rule to be as high as $591 billion. let me say that again. one agency, one rule, $591 billion. let me go back to something many of my colleagues have already mentioned today, the s.e.c. mission. i'll quote from their own website. the mission of the s.e.c. is to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation. if investor protection is truly the mission of the s.e.c., then why was this provision of the dodd-frank listed in the section titled miscellaneous provisions? mr. chairman, american companies should be protected and no one denies that. but to put them at a competitive disadvantage against their foreign counterparts by implementing this rule is just plain wrong. my friends on the other side of the aisle will argue that republicans are gutting an important transparency policy meant to combat corruption. well, mr. chairman, my response to those claims are this,
republicans are the party of transparency. we value accountability. but in this instance, the dodd-frank act instructed a federal agency without any substantial experience in resource extraction or foreign policy to craft this mandatory disclosure for certain public companies. as many of my colleagues have said today, industry is already publicly disclosing the work they do in foreign countries and will continue to do so. the difference is simple. they do it at a level that does not cause competitive harm. mr. speaker, i again urge my colleagues to support passage of this resolution and erase a top-down, washington-knows-best provision that is harmful to american companies and american investors. we should and can do it better. in god we trust. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i'm happy to yield two minutes to the gentleman from arkansas, mr. hill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for two minutes.
mr. hill: i thank the speaker, i thank the chairman for yielding the time today. i rise in support of h.j.res. 41. as you've heard today, it has an immense cost to our economy. $590 e.c. estimates up to million per year, mr. speaker. now think about that. that's $5 billion over 10 years. if we put a multiplier on that, that's 50ds billion of investable capital that could be put out for productive use, helping the world have more mineral resources. but instead it goes to this ill-advised rule. in the past two decades, the united states has lost more than 50%, mr. speaker, of its public companies and in large part due to the costs and regulatory burdens of being associated with being a public company. dodd-frank's resource extraction rule piles on even more harmful red tape for those publicly traded companies in the united states that are global energy
providers. as this rule only applies to publicly traded companies, this increased burden puts u.s. companies at a disadvantage. over 75% of the extracted minerals are owned by state-owned enterprises, mr. speaker, that are not covered by this rule. that puts our companies at a competitive disadvantage. . it requires companies to reveal confidential information putting companies at a competitive disadvantage. if people want transparency, the best way to handle that is through self-disclosure through global transparency and accountability. there are important public policy goals and 51 countries entered into the transparency institute, which is self-reporting and publishing by country, by company, both public and private. these important issues about mineral e