[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                  FUELING THE CLIMATE CRISIS: EXPOSING
                  BIG OIL'S DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN TO
                         PREVENT CLIMATE ACTION

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                          OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                            OCTOBER 28, 2021

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-50

                               __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
      
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]      


                       Available on: govinfo.gov,
                         oversight.house.gov or
                             docs.house.gov
                             
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
46-026 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                
                             
                             
                   COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM

                CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Chairwoman

Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of   James Comer, Kentucky, Ranking 
    Columbia                             Minority Member
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts      Jim Jordan, Ohio
Jim Cooper, Tennessee                Paul A. Gosar, Arizona
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia         Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois        Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Jamie Raskin, Maryland               Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Ro Khanna, California                Michael Cloud, Texas
Kweisi Mfume, Maryland               Bob Gibbs, Ohio
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York   Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan              Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Katie Porter, California             Pete Sessions, Texas
Cori Bush, Missouri                  Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
Danny K. Davis, Illinois             Andy Biggs, Arizona
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida    Andrew Clyde, Georgia
Peter Welch, Vermont                 Nancy Mace, South Carolina
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr.,      Scott Franklin, Florida
    Georgia                          Jake LaTurner, Kansas
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland           Pat Fallon, Texas
Jackie Speier, California            Yvette Herrell, New Mexico
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois             Byron Donalds, Florida
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
Mark DeSaulnier, California
Jimmy Gomez, California
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Mike Quigley, Illinois

                      Russ Anello, Staff Director
                          Greta Gao, Team Lead
          Elisa LaNier, Chief Clerk and Director of Operations
                      Contact Number: 202-225-5051

                  Mark Marin, Minority Staff Director
                                 ------                                
                        
                        
                        C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on October 28, 2021.................................     1

                               Witnesses

Mr. Darren Woods, Chief Executive Officer, ExxonMobil Corporation
    Oral Statement...............................................     7

Mr. Michael K. Wirth, Chief Executive Officer, Chevron 
  Corporation
    Oral Statement...............................................     9

Mr. David Lawler, Chief Executive Officer, BP America Inc.
    Oral Statement...............................................    10

Ms. Gretchen Watkins, President, Shell Oil Company
    Oral Statement...............................................    12

Mr. Mike Sommers, President, American Petroleum Institute
    Oral Statement...............................................    13

Ms. Suzanne Clark, President and Chief Executive Officer, U.S. 
  Chamber of Commerce
    Oral Statement...............................................    14

Mr. Neal Crabtree (Minority witness), Former Welding Foreman, 
  Keystone XL Pipeline
    Oral Statement...............................................    16

 Opening statements and the prepared statements for the witnesses 
  are available in the U.S. House of Representatives Repository 
  at: docs.house.gov.

                           INDEX OF DOCUMENTS

                              ----------                              

The documents entered into the record during this hearing, and 
  Questions for the Record (QFR's) for this hearing are listed 
  below.

  * Opinion by New York District Court Judge Valerie Caproni 
  regarding San Francisco v. Exxon; submitted by Rep. Raskin.

  * Article on oil companies fund to defeat Alaska's tax 
  proposal; submitted by Rep. Tlaib.

  * Ad campaign by Michigan group Energy Citizens ahead of energy 
  vote legislation; submitted by Rep. Tlaib.

  * Articles, L.A. Times; submitted by Rep. DeSaulnier.

  * Articles, Climate Action News; submitted by Rep. DeSaulnier.
  * Correspondence between Reps. DeSaulnier, Lieu, and Welch with 
  Exxon Mobile; submitted by Rep. DeSaulnier.

  * Article, ``With a Pen Stroke, President Joe Biden Cancels the 
  Keystone XL Pipeline Project''; submitted by Rep. Cloud.

  * Article, ``Biden Lifts U.S. Sanctions on Major Russian 
  Pipeline''; submitted by Rep. Cloud.

  * Article, ``While Western Nations Kill Energy, China Builds 
  Coal Plants by the Dozen''; submitted by Rep. Cloud.

  * Article, ``China is Planning to Build 43 New Coal-Fired Power 
  Plants''; submitted by Rep. Cloud.

  * Article, ``Russia Projects Oil Output Near Post-Soviet Highs 
  in 2022''; submitted by Rep. Cloud.

  * Article, ``Europe Has Become a Hostage to Russia Over Energy, 
  Analysts Warn''; submitted by Rep. Cloud.

  * Article, ``Europe Warns Its Gas Prices Surge Will Drive Up 
  Food Costs''; submitted by Rep. Cloud.

  * Article, ``Biden Asks OPEC to Up Oil Production While 
  Limiting U.S. Energy Production''; submitted by Rep. Cloud.

  * Article, ``Qatar Petroleum Signs a 15-Year LNG Supply Deal 
  with China''; submitted by Rep. Cloud.

  * Article, ``Qatar Petroleum Boosts LNG Production''; submitted 
  by Rep. Cloud.

  * Articles, ``Qatar Places a $760 Million Order with China for 
  Liquid Gas Ships;'' ``Energy Costs are Stoking Inflation. Just 
  Look at U.S. Gas Prices''; submitted by Rep. Cloud.

  * Article, ``Home Heating Sticker Shock: The Cost of Natural 
  Gas is Up by 180 Percent''; submitted by Rep. Cloud.

  * Article, ``Food Prices Poised to Surge with Fertilizer Prices 
  at the Highest in Years''; submitted by Rep. Cloud.

  * Letter from Ranking Member Comer; submitted by Rep. Donalds.

  * Report, US Energy Information, ``Winter Fuels Outlook''; 
  submitted by Rep. Keller.

  * Statement for the Record from Lee Raymond in 1996 regarding 
  the human impact on the climate crisis; submitted by Chairwoman 
  Maloney.

  * Statement from James Black, Exxon scientist, regarding the 
  impact of burning fossil fuels on climate change; submitted by 
  Chairwoman Maloney.

  * Statement from Mr. Glaser, Exxon manager of environmental 
  affairs, about the impacts of climate change; submitted by 
  Chairwoman Maloney.

  * Statement for the Record, quote from letter regarding OPEC 
  and world oil supplies by Maria Cantwell, Senator Menendez, 
  Senator Schumer, and Senator Markey from 2018; submitted by 
  Rep. Graves.

  * Questions for the Record:to all witnesses; submitted by Rep. 
  Bush

  * Questions for the Record: to Mr. Michael K. Wirth, CEO, 
  Chevron Corp; submitted by Rep. Tlaib.

 
                  FUELING THE CLIMATE CRISIS: EXPOSING
                  BIG OIL'S DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN TO
                         PREVENT CLIMATE ACTION

                              ----------                              


                       Thursday, October 28, 2021

                  House of Representatives,
                 Committee on Oversight and Reform,
                                                   Washington, D.C.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:44 a.m., in 
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, and via Zoom. The 
Hon. Carolyn Maloney [chairwoman of the committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Maloney, Norton, Lynch, Cooper, 
Connolly, Krishnamoorthi, Raskin, Khanna, Mfume, Ocasio-Cortez, 
Tlaib, Porter, Bush, Davis, Wasserman Schultz, Welch, Johnson, 
Sarbanes, Kelly, DeSaulnier, Gomez, Pressley, Quigley, Comer, 
Jordan, Foxx, Hice, Grothman, Cloud, Gibbs, Higgins, Norman, 
Sessions, Keller, Biggs, Clyde, Franklin, LaTurner, Fallon, 
Herrell, and Donalds.
    Also present: Representatives Casten, Levin, Jones, Omar, 
Brady, and Graves.
    Chairwoman Maloney. [Presiding.] The committee will come to 
order.
    This is a historic hearing. For the first time, top fossil 
fuel executives are testifying together before Congress under 
oath about the industry's role in causing climate change and 
their efforts to cover it up. For far too long, Big Oil has 
escaped accountability for its central role in bringing our 
planet to the brink of a climate catastrophe. That ends today.
    Big Oil has known the truth about climate change for 
decades. In the 1970's and 80's, Exxon's own scientists 
privately told top executives that burning fossil fuel was 
changing the global climate. Exxon and other Big Oil companies 
had the opportunity to tell the truth and lead the way to find 
alternative energy sources, but instead, Big Oil doubled down 
on fossil fuels. Working with the American Petroleum Institute, 
and the Chamber of Commerce, and other front groups and PR 
firms, the industry ran a coordinated campaign to mislead the 
public, hide the dangers of its own product, and derail global 
efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions.
    At the same time, they were lining their own pockets. 
Between 1990 and 2019, the four oil companies here today 
reported nearly $2 trillion in profits, but the costs of 
inaction on climate have been far higher. The American people 
lost more than 30 years when we could have curbed climate 
change. Today we face stronger hurricanes, dangerous wildfires, 
and destructive floods. As the effects of climate change have 
become undeniable, Big Oil has changed its record and its 
rhetoric. Now they say they believe in climate change and they 
support the Paris Agreement and a price on carbon. They promise 
they will reduce their carbon emissions and even aspire to net 
zero emissions, and they have spent billions of dollars on PR 
firms to paint themselves as climate champions, but Big Oil's 
actions tell a different story.
    These companies not only continue to sell millions of 
barrels of oil every day. They are also investing in new oil 
fields. Their lobbying also tells a different story. Today the 
committee is releasing a new staff analysis showing that over 
the past 10 years, these four companies have dedicated only a 
very tiny fraction of their immense lobbying resources to enact 
the policies they publicly claim are key to address climate 
change, while spending tens of millions to protect their 
profits from oil and gas.
    Earlier this year, a senior lobbyist at Exxon admitted the 
truth. He was caught on video saying that Exxon's support for a 
carbon tax was merely a ``talking point'' which would never 
become reality. And even today, lobbyists from American 
Petroleum Institute and other industry groups are fighting 
tooth and nail against key climate provisions in the Build Back 
Better Act. But we must act. Just this week, the United Nations 
released a new report stating that nations' current pledges 
fall far short of what is necessary to avert catastrophe. These 
experts agree that we will still have a narrow and fast 
disappearing window to prevent the worst outcomes from climate 
change. To do that, we need to immediately cut fossil fuel 
emissions by 3 to 4 percent each year and rapidly transition to 
net zero carbon emissions.
    Twenty-seven years ago, seven tobacco executives appeared 
in this room before Congress. Rather than admitting the truth 
about their product, the executives lied. This was a watershed 
moment in the public's understanding of Big Tobacco. I hope 
that today's hearing represents a turning point for Big Oil. I 
hope that today the witnesses will finally own up to the 
industry's central role in this crisis and become part of the 
change we need. That also means cooperating with this 
committee's investigation. We asked each of these companies for 
documents six weeks ago, but they have not come close to 
producing the key internal documents about climate change and 
the money trail we asked for. So let me be clear. We are at the 
beginning of this investigation. I assure you we will not stop 
until we get to the truth, and if we need to call the CEOs back 
to testify again, we will.
    After four decades of deception and delay, it is time for 
the fossil fuel industry to finally change its ways. Thousands 
of companies have already recognized the imminent threat of 
climate change and are working with community leaders and 
scientists to bring down emissions. It is time for Big Oil to 
finally join the rest of us in this fight. We can prevent a 
climate disaster while keeping energy costs low and creating 
good-paying jobs, but only if Big Oil acknowledges its central 
role in this crisis and commits to meaningful and immediate 
action.
    I now recognize the distinguished ranking member, Mr. 
Comer, for an opening statement.
    Mr. Comer. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney, and I want to 
thank the witnesses for their willingness to testify before the 
committee today. However, I have concerns about today's hearing 
and the legitimacy of Democrats' so-called investigation of 
America's oil and gas companies. First, let me remind 
Chairwoman Maloney and committee Democrats that the Oversight 
and Reform Committee exists to root out waste, fraud, and abuse 
in the Federal bureaucracy. When are we going to hold a hearing 
with a Biden Administration Cabinet member so we can hold the 
Federal Government accountable?
    It is critical that this committee examine the pressing 
concerns of American citizens. Inflation caused by the Biden 
Administration's economic policies is sitting at 5.4 percent, 
gas prices are at a seven-year high, and heating bills are 
expected to rise as much as 54 percent this winter. The Biden 
Administration continues to allow illegal immigrants to pour 
over the southern border. Questions remain about the disastrous 
handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal, all while the White 
House fails to manage the COVID-19 pandemic they said would be 
over by July 4.
    Instead of convening hearings on any of these topics and 
holding the Biden Administration accountable for its actions, 
committee Democrats have called this hearing because they 
watched a deceptively recorded and edited eight-minute video 
clip of an Exxon lobbyist. Committee Democrats won't tell the 
American people that the basis of their misguided inquiry 
appears to be a multi-month operation launched by activist 
group, Green Peace UK, involving fake websites and LinkedIn 
profiles, false job opportunities, and deceptive emails and 
interviews. Given the questionable activities undertaken by 
Green Peace U.K. to obtain the so-called information at the 
heart of this investigation, the American people must question 
the legitimacy of the Democrats' actions.
    When committee Republicans asked Chairwoman Maloney to join 
us in requesting the full video back on August 12, 2021, they 
refused. Ironically, just yesterday, over two months later, the 
Democrats wrote saying they now would like to join our request. 
I don't know what took so long, but they apparently didn't want 
the full video to be shown at today's hearing. In reality, they 
don't want to see it and they don't want the American people to 
see it. Democrats didn't invite the person who was secretly 
recording to the hearing today because they are more interested 
in a spectacle.
    Instead, committee Democrats took this questionable 
information and wrote letters to the CEOs who are appearing 
today. They requested internal documents and communications 
that these entities had with the Federal Government and 
lawmakers. They struck at the very heart of the First Amendment 
protections that exist for these groups and any American to 
petition their government. We raised objections to Chairwoman 
Maloney about the protected nature of these communications and 
the chilling effect these requests would have on the ability of 
entities to petition their government. However, Democrats have 
not bothered to respond to our concerns. The purpose of this 
hearing is clear: to deliver partisan theater for prime-time 
news. Subcommittee Chairman Khanna went to the media 
threatening subpoenas months before any of the witnesses were 
even invited to testify. Now, despite receiving well over 
100,000 pages of documents from today's witnesses, Democrats 
are complaining that no one is cooperating with them.
    Chairwoman Maloney, this hearing is simply a distraction 
from the crises that the Biden Administration's policies have 
caused for the American people. Just last week, President Biden 
admitted that he had no solution for the skyrocketing gas 
prices. He said prices will not go down until 2022. That is a 
problem for all Americans, especially low-income households. 
Meanwhile, hours after President Biden took office, he canceled 
the Keystone Pipeline and put 11,000 workers out of a job 
overnight, including the Republican witness, Neal Crabtree, who 
is still looking for work.
    I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today, and I 
yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back. I now 
recognize Chairman Rho Khanna for his opening statement.
    Mr. Khanna. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Comer 
and I have a good relationship. This isn't about partisanship. 
This is about getting at the truth. Today, the CEOs of the 
largest oil companies in the world have a choice. You can 
either come clean, admit your misrepresentations and ongoing 
inconsistencies and stop supporting climate disinformation, or 
you can sit there in front of the American public and lie under 
oath.
    Now, let me remind you of a fact that I am sure your many 
lawyers have brought to your attention. In 1994, the CEOs of 
the seven largest tobacco companies appeared right here before 
our committee. They, too, faced a choice. They chose to lie 
under oath, denying that nicotine was addictive. As I am sure 
you realize, that didn't turn out too well for them. I hope Big 
Oil will not follow the same playbook as Big Tobacco. You are 
powerful leaders at the top of the corporate world at a turning 
point for our planet. Be better.
    Spare us the spin today. Really, we have no interest in it. 
Spin doesn't work under oath. We have all heard your 
spokespeople's talking points. Speak from the heart today. You 
will tell us your companies have contributed to academic 
research on climate science. That is true, but that is not the 
issue at hand. Despite your early knowledge of climate science, 
your companies and the trade associations you fund chose time 
and again to loudly raise doubts about the science and downplay 
the severity of the crisis. In short, the question is not did 
you prevent academic research on climate science--no one says 
you prevented that--but did any of your executives at any point 
mislead the American public?
    You will say you have now seen the light. You will say you 
are for a carbon tax to have a ``talking point,'' even though 
the former Exxon lobbyist, Keith McCoy tells us you believe 
``it is not going to happen.'' You will say you are for the 
Paris Accords, of course. Most of you will say you are working 
to reduce emissions, though, notably, one of you will say not 
the 80 to 90 percent of emissions that actually come from the 
gas you sell, just the 10 percent arising from your own 
operations. You will tout carbon capture and storage even 
though all of the carbon capture--and I want to make this point 
clearly--all of the captured carbon is being used to enhance 
oil extraction and actually increasing CO2 emissions in the 
world, even though there is no economically proven way to store 
CO2 indefinitely.
    Here is the problem. This hearing will show that your 
actions continue to be inconsistent with the climate goals you 
now espouse. I wish they were consistent. My goal honestly is 
not to embarrass you. It is not to have a ``gotcha'' moment. 
That doesn't help any of us. You actually have a moment to 
shine today. You could commit to changing course and taking 
actions that would avert a climate catastrophe, or you could 
continue to deny and deceive out of a sense of institutional 
loyalty to your companies' past. The choice is really yours. As 
you make it, think of the indigenous-led demonstrations last 
week and the five young activists from the Sunrise Movement who 
have been outside the White House on a hunger strike for nine 
days and counting. They are putting their lives on the line 
because they know that countless thousands will suffer and die 
if we continue on our current path.
    Just today, don't think of yourselves as the CEOs. Just 
think of yourselves as human beings. And I have this question: 
what will you do to end the hunger strike? What do you have to 
say to America's children born into a burning world? Find it in 
yourself today to tell the truth. It will be better for your 
companies' futures, and it will be better for humanity's 
future. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Maloney. And I now recognize Congressman Norman 
for an opening statement.
    Mr. Norman. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney, and I want to 
thank the witnesses for their willingness to testify before the 
committee today.
    Today, committee Democrats have contrived yet another 
hearing to demonize the oil and gas industry. The folks 
represented before us today run organizations that are 
providing good-paying jobs and secure, affordable, and clean 
energy for all Americans, something this Administration is 
attempting to dismantle. Instead of conducting actual 
oversight, as Congressman Comer mentioned, oversight that shows 
the disastrous decisions the Biden Administration has made this 
year, the Democrats are focused on destroying an industry and 
the jobs it provides to distract us from the fact that they 
have no plan to recoup our energy work force or energy 
independence. I assume that is why they canceled the Keystone 
Pipeline. I assume that is how they justify buying gas and oil 
from countries that don't like us. I assume they do not 
understand the effects of the Colonial Pipeline shutdown, what 
it had on this country. Now we are begging OPEC to make more 
oil and make it affordable.
    Members of this committee need to start focusing on the 
issues that are impacting everyday Americans and the 
consequences of an overly ambitious and unrealistic climate 
agenda. I don't know about the rest of you all on this 
committee, but the people of South Carolina did not send me to 
Washington to bankrupt our country. And even the phrase, 
``Build Back Better,'' needs to be changed to ``bankrupt 
America quicker.'' We should have a hearing about some of the 
proposals by Democrats to spend hardworking American taxpayers' 
money on liberal pipe dreams.
    I would love to learn more about the proposal to spend $3.5 
billion for the Green New Deal youth patrol aimed at helping 
jobless climate activists. Does anyone really believe the youth 
patrol will reduce the impacts of climate change? Will the 
youth patrol make China and India less of a polluter than they 
are now? China continues to pollute at record levels while the 
United States continues to reduce emissions. Do Democrats 
really believe that putting the oil and gas industry out of 
business will suddenly make China less of a polluter? I am 
afraid extreme proposals by Democrats will do nothing but 
destroy good-paying American jobs and ruin our economy.
    What Democrats will not discuss is how President Biden and 
his Administration's policies have caused a litany of issues 
for the American people. This Administration's out-of-control 
spending is causing inflation to skyrocket. As a result, 
Americans are now paying more for goods and services while 
taking home less money in their paychecks. Everyone can see 
that. Look on your screen. The price of gasoline today is $1.22 
more per gallon than it was this time last year under the Trump 
Administration. As we enter the upcoming holiday season, the 
price of a Thanksgiving dinner will be a minimum of five 
percent more expensive than it was last year. Americans are 
feeling the effects of inflation in their wallets, and I fear 
it will only get worse.
    Chairwoman Maloney, we will be getting you a letter to 
hopefully have the Democrats' expert, John Kerry, fly over 
here, I assume in his private jet on fossil fuel, to 
participate in a debate with him as the expert for the Democrat 
side, and let us have another expert that would contradict many 
of his statements. Mr. Kerry has a large contingent from the 
Biden Administration, and I am sure he can bring them in to 
help him out.
    The Biden Administration is headed to attend this 
conference this year on climate change without a clear mandate 
from the U.S. Congress to make vague commitments that will 
never be met, while the top leaders from the largest polluters 
in the world, as I mentioned--China--President Xi refused to 
participate. While the Biden Administration is in the United 
Kingdom, back here in America, our constituents are dealing 
with the growing crisis related to supply chain, gasoline 
prices, the rising prices at every level. It is truly sad that 
the American people are being abandoned by their leaders at 
such a critical moment. This crisis is not Democrat, it is not 
Republican, but it is intentionally caused by the Democratic 
Party of today. The oil and gas industry provides good-paying 
jobs that help Americans reliably heat their houses, power 
their cars, and keep the lights on through the storm when the 
sun doesn't shine.
    Folks, we are heading down a dangerous path with the Biden 
Administration's policies. I fear this winter and going into 
2022 will only continue to get worse. It was recently reported 
that the home heating costs this winter would rise as much as 
54 percent. The Biden Administration, as it has done on all the 
crises it has had over the last nine months, has no plan to 
confront these mounting problems, especially that affect 
everyone, but especially low-income Americans. The United 
States has abundant clean energy natural resources. We must use 
these resources to advance America's interests while continuing 
to lead the world in emission reductions. This is the path 
forward, but the Democrats want to block it every chance they 
get.
    Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. Now I would like to 
introduce our witnesses. Our first witness today is Mr. Darren 
Woods, who is the CEO of ExxonMobil. Then we will hear from 
Michael Wirth, who is the CEO of Chevron. Next we will hear 
from David Lawler, who is the CEO of BP America. Next we will 
hear from Ms. Gretchen Watkins, who is the president of Shell 
Oil. Next we will hear from Mr. Mike Sommers, who is the 
president of the American Petroleum Institute. Next we will 
hear from Ms. Suzanne Clark, who is the president and CEO of 
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Next we will hear from Neal 
Crabtree, a former welder. Thank you.
    The witnesses will be unmuted so we can swear them in. 
Please raise your right hands.
    Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to 
give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 
so help you God?
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    Chairwoman Maloney. Let the record show that the witnesses 
answered in the affirmative.
    Mr. Mfume. Madam Chair?
    Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you, and without objection, your 
written statements will be made part of the record.
    And with that, Mr. Woods, you are now recognized for your 
testimony.
    Mr. Mfume. Madam Chair? Madam Chair?
    Chairwoman Maloney. Who seeks recognition?
    Mr. Mfume. Right here. I have a question. I am curious. Is 
there a reason why none of the witnesses traveled here to 
Washington today to represent their respective companies?
    Chairwoman Maloney. They elected to appear remotely, and 
they have that right.
    Mr. Mfume. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Mr. Woods, you are now recognized.

STATEMENT OF DARREN WOODS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, EXXONMOBIL 
                          CORPORATION

    Mr. Woods. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking Member 
Comer, Chairman Khanna, Ranking Member Norman, and members of 
the Committee on Oversight and Reform. My name is Darren Woods. 
I am the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of ExxonMobil 
Corporation. On behalf of the company, I welcome the 
opportunity to participate in this important discussion today. 
ExxonMobil provides an essential component of modern society: 
affordable, reliable, and abundant energy. For more than 150 
years, oil and gas has played a critical role in our society, 
improving human lives, raising standards of living, and 
enabling unprecedented economic growth. Without them, the 
living standards that we enjoy today would not be possible.
    Those of us fortunate enough to live and work in the United 
States and other developed countries often take for granted our 
ready access to energy. That is not the case for billions of 
people around the world. Many still lack basic electricity or 
clean cooking facilities for their homes. Access to reliable 
and affordable energy is more than a convenience. Energy 
delivers longer, healthier lives, better education, greater 
mobility, and improved living conditions. It's one of the basic 
requirements that power economies and societal progress.
    ExxonMobil and its roughly 70,000 employees are proud of 
the contributions we make every day to improving the lives of 
people all around the world. It is vitally important work. We 
also recognize that society must continue to diversify our 
energy mix to address climate change. ExxonMobil has long 
recognized that climate change is real and poses serious risks, 
but there are no easy answers. As the International Energy 
Agency has said, oil and gas will continue to be necessary for 
the foreseeable future. We currently do not have the adequate 
alternative energy sources. At the same time, we know the 
combustion of oil and gas releases greenhouse gases, and that 
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has 
concluded that increased greenhouse gases can contribute to the 
effects of climate change. That is one of the issues we must 
address and one that we are well positioned to continue our 
work on: reducing the emissions that result from the combustion 
of oil and gas.
    This hearing comes at an important time as the world is 
challenged with how to meet the growing need for energy while 
reducing emissions to mitigate climate change. The recent 
disruption of energy supplies in parts of the world has 
resulted in outages, fuel lines, and manufacturing shutdowns. 
The very real impact on families and businesses demonstrates 
how critical it is to thoughtfully manage the transition to a 
lower emissions future. ExxonMobil is committed to being part 
of the solution. Our scientists and engineers are applying 
their expertise to help responsibly meet the world's need for 
energy while working to find ways to accelerate the transition 
to a world with fewer emissions, starting with our own 
operations.
    We reduced emissions by 11 percent between 2016 and 2020. 
Our plans through 2025 are consistent with the goals of the 
Paris Agreement. They are expected to deliver significant 
additional reductions in both emissions' intensity and absolute 
emissions. We launched a low-carbon solutions business to 
commercialize carbon capture and other technologies, such as 
hydrogen and biofuels, to reduce emissions in the parts of the 
economy that are the hardest to de-carbonize. As the 
International Energy Agency recognized this year, carbon 
capture contributes to the transition to net zero in multiple 
ways, and it represents one of the biggest opportunities for 
innovation to address emissions.
    ExxonMobil is the world leader in this technology as a 
share of approximately one-fifth of global CCS capacity and is 
responsible for approximately 40 percent of all the captured 
anthropogenic CO2 in the world. We are pursuing several 
projects that can deliver large-scale emission reductions in 
hard-to-decarbonize sectors, like heavy industry and power 
generation. In addition, we are investing in breakthrough 
research to develop the next generation of lower emission fuels 
and fuels technologies, including advanced biofuels. We do that 
through research and development by our scientists and by 
collaborating with leading universities, governments, and 
private companies around the world.
    Finally, ExxonMobil has been engaged in policy discussions 
related to the energy and environment for years. Our views on 
policies and its implications have been guided by our 
understanding of the science. We have been vocal and 
transparent in our support for governments to implement 
policies that are cost-effective and achieve the greatest 
emissions reductions at the lowest overall cost to society. We 
have advocated for an economy-wide revenue-neutral price on 
carbon for more than a decade and have publicly supported the 
Paris Agreement since its inception. I hope that today's 
hearing stimulates thoughtful discussion and a greater 
understanding of the need for meaningful action from all of 
us--governments, businesses, and individuals.
    All of us use and depend on today's energy system. We all 
have a role to play in finding solutions to climate change that 
will reduce emissions while meeting the growing need for energy 
in order to improve lives around the world. I welcome your 
questions.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. Mr. Wirth, you are now 
recognized for your testimony. Mr. Wirth.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL K. WIRTH, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CHEVRON 
                          CORPORATION

    Mr. Wirth. Chairwoman Maloney and Ranking Member Comer, 
Subcommittee Chairman Khanna and Ranking Member Norman, members 
of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with 
you today. My name is Michael Wirth, and I am the chair and CEO 
of Chevron.
    For more than 140 years, Chevron has proudly delivered 
energy that drives the world forward: light, heat, mobility, 
mechanized agriculture, modern medicine. Quite literally the 
food we eat, the clothes we wear, and the standard of living we 
enjoy are made possible by affordable, reliable, and ever-
cleaner energy. In many ways our story and that of our industry 
tracks the history of human progress. These are stories of 
extraordinary achievements over the past century plus, 
achievements that were once believed impossible.
    Today we are one of the world's leading integrated energy 
companies. We contribute to the communities where we operate by 
creating jobs, sourcing from local suppliers, and giving back 
to the community. Just as when we were founded in 1879, we 
continue to believe in the power of human ingenuity to overcome 
obstacles and find responsible solutions for meeting the 
world's growing energy needs to deliver a better future for 
all. The issue we are here to discuss today, climate change, is 
one of the biggest challenges of our time. At Chevron, we've 
been very clear about where we stand. We accept the scientific 
consensus. Climate change is real, and the use of fossil fuels 
contributes to it. We are committed to helping address this 
challenge.
    I also want to address directly a concern expressed by some 
of those calling for today's hearing. While our views on 
climate change have developed over time, any suggestion that 
Chevron is engaged in an effort to spread disinformation and 
mislead the public on these complex issues is simply wrong. In 
recent years, conversations about climate have intensified, 
innovation and technology have accelerated, and the energy 
system that underpins our global economy has continued to 
evolve. So has Chevron. We believe the future of energy is 
lower carbon, and we're committed to being a leader in making 
that future a reality.
    We have set ambitious targets for our own greenhouse 
emissions. We've announced a net zero aspiration for our 
upstream Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, and we intend to invest 
more than $10 billion to reduce emissions and grow new energy 
businesses. Our strategy is straightforward. We'll continue to 
be a leader in efficient and lower carbon production of the 
traditional energy the world uses today while growing new 
lower-carbon businesses that will be a bigger part of the 
future. I look forward to sharing the action we're taking, and 
more details about those actions are included in my written 
testimony.
    We welcome a thoughtful discussion about the path ahead and 
how we can achieve a lower-carbon energy future, while at the 
same avoiding supply disruptions and preserving American 
leadership in energy. As part of this discussion, the 
undeniable reality is that oil and gas remain an important part 
of the energy equation. Honest, thoughtful climate policy 
discussions should account for that.
    Chevron is a proud American company. The affordable, 
reliable energy that the more than 35,000 women and men of our 
company produce every day has improved the quality of life and 
enabled a higher standard of living for people around the 
world. Our products fuel hospitals, schools, offices, 
restaurants, stores, and homes. They enable the movement of 
goods around the world and right to our very doorsteps. They 
create good-paying jobs that support families across the 
country, and they enhance our national security by reducing 
dependence on foreign energy. This should all be part of the 
conversation as we seek an orderly and predictable energy 
future that works for everyone.
    Confronting the climate challenge requires critical 
thinking about investment, technology, pace, goals, and 
timetables. This must be a comprehensive effort. No one 
company, no one industry, and no one country can meet this 
global challenge alone. This is a conversation necessarily 
about both supply, which Chevron helps to provide, and demand 
driven by consumers worldwide. At Chevron, we believe 
government action, in partnership with the private sector, is 
essential to enable evolution of the energy system, and we 
stand ready to work with you.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. Mr. Lawler, you are now 
recognized for your testimony.

STATEMENT OF DAVID LAWLER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BP AMERICA 
                              INC.

    Mr. Lawler. Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking Member Comer, 
Chairman Khanna, Ranking Member Norman, and members of the 
committee, I'm Dave Lawler. Thank you for the opportunity to 
speak today about BP's low carbon transformation and our 
ambition to get to net zero by 2050 or sooner, and to help the 
world get there, too.
    I first joined BP in 2014 as head of our oil and gas 
operations in the Continental United States. I was named 
chairman and present of BP America last year. Our U.S. 
operations are part of the economic fabric of this country. We 
directly employ some 10,000 people, support nearly a quarter 
million jobs, and contributed $60 billion to the national 
economy last year. Almost a quarter century ago, BP was among 
the first major companies in our industry to recognize publicly 
the scientific consensus about the human contribution to 
climate change and supported policies to address it. That 
recognition has guided many of our decisions since then. These 
decisions include launching a separate low-carbon energy 
business in 2005, which invested more than $8 billion over 10 
years. By 2007, BP publicly supported carbon pricing.
    When we announced our net zero ambition in February 2020, 
we recognized it wouldn't be easy, but we believed it was vital 
for both society and the success of our business. We know that 
the world's carbon budget is finite, and we've set clear, 
verifiable short-and longer-term targets on our path to net 
zero. By 2025, we aim to grow our low-carbon investments to $3 
to $4 billion per year, and then to $5 billion per year in 
2030. This would represent nearly a third of our projected 
capital expenditures. At the same time, by 2030, we expect to 
reduce our global oil and gas production by 40 percent from a 
2019 baseline. Beyond capital investment and reduced 
production, we plan to eliminate routine flaring in our U.S. 
onshore operations by 2025. We also have an ambitious global 
methane intensity target of .02 percent based on our industry-
leading measurement approach.
    I recognize that some may doubt how serious we are about 
our net zero ambition. I get it. Our progress hasn't always 
been a straight line, but we've learned a great deal and we 
view the path we're on as a business imperative. That's one 
reason we continue to report regularly on our progress, and 
we've already taken concrete steps to meet our targets. Through 
the first half of 2021, we more than doubled our 2019 low-
carbon investments to $1.1 billion, undertaking transformative 
offshore wind and solar energy power generation projects in the 
United States. This doesn't mean BP is getting out of the oil 
and gas business. As we transition, our oil and gas business 
will continue providing the energy the world needs while 
funding our investments in wind, solar, and other renewable 
energy sources.
    As we work to make BP a net zero company, we are trying to 
help the world get there, too. We've redoubled our advocacy in 
support of policies to address climate change. We've advocated 
directly and with a range of partners to advance carbon pricing 
at the state and Federal level. We're advocating for the direct 
regulation of methane emissions from the oil and gas industry. 
We aim for alignment between our positions and those of the 
trade associations to which we belong. We recognize that 
associations' positions are often a compromise of various 
perspectives, and we advocate within them for our views on 
climate change.
    With world leaders on the verge of an important 
international climate gathering in Glasgow, it's more critical 
than ever that governments and industry work together to find 
solutions to this challenge. We know we have a hard road ahead, 
but it's also filled with opportunities. Along the way, we 
welcome debate and public scrutiny because succeeding in the 
energy transition is critical both for BP and for the world.
    Thank you for this opportunity. I look forward to your 
questions.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. Ms. Watkins, you are now 
recognized for your testimony.

  STATEMENT OF GRETCHEN WATKINS, PRESIDENT, SHELL OIL COMPANY

    Ms. Watkins. Chairwoman Maloney, Chairman Khanna, Ranking 
Member Comer, Ranking Member Norman, and members of the 
committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today to 
discuss the urgent need for action on climate change and 
Shell's effort to advance society's transition to a lower-
carbon future.
    Through Shell's Global Power and Progress Strategy, we are 
working with our customers across sectors to accelerate our own 
progress and support the transition to net zero emissions in 
the United States and globally in step with society. Shell has 
been and remains vocal about the needed energy transition, and 
we continue to advocate for sound carbon policies that support 
the transition to renewables and lower carbon energy sources, 
including seeking to ensure a transition that is fair and 
equitable. This kind of challenge is not new to Americans. We 
have tackled enormous challenges before, and we can do it 
again.
    I lead Shell Oil Company, the U.S. subsidiary of Royal 
Dutch Shell in the Netherlands. Shell's position on climate 
change has been publicly documented for nearly three decades. 
As early as 1991, our annual reports discussed concerns about 
climate change. Our first sustainability report in 1998 noted 
that human activity and the use of fossil fuels could affect 
the climate. Shell has issued a sustainability report every 
year since, and the subsequent reports have discussed climate 
change and the challenges that it poses. Shell has long 
advocated for governmental policies that will reduce fossil 
fuel demand, stimulate innovation and cleaner energy 
technologies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and ensure 
access to reliable and affordable energy.
    Shell strongly advocated for the United States to remain in 
the Paris Climate Agreement and later to rejoin it. Shell has a 
long history of advocating for carbon pricing, such as Waxman-
Markey, which passed the House in 2009. Shell supports a number 
of provisions in the pending infrastructure legislation related 
to climate change, and we support climate provisions in budget 
reconciliation, including electric vehicle infrastructure, 
hydrogen production, carbon capture and storage, and a well-
constructed methane fee.
    In 2017, Shell was the first energy business to announce an 
ambition for reducing net carbon intensity, and in the years 
since, Shell's ambitions have progressively developed. In 2020, 
we announced our intention to be a net zero by 2050 company in 
step with society. We have short-, medium-, and long-term 
intensity-based reduction targets, and today, in announcements 
made early this morning in Europe, we've announced our intent 
to reduce our Scope 1 and 2 absolute emissions by 50 percent by 
2030 on a net basis.
    Shell companies have invested billions in lower carbon 
energy, including solar and wind, electric vehicle charging, 
and infrastructure. For example, we've purchased a large stake 
in Silicon Ranch, a leading solar farm developer in Nashville, 
Tennessee with more than 145 operating facilities coast to 
coast, and we acquired Green Lots, a California-based company 
that provides electric vehicle charging solutions.
    Meeting the demand for reliable energy while simultaneously 
addressing climate change is a huge undertaking and one of the 
defining challenges of our time. Fuel is needed to power 
trucks, airplanes, and ships that move people and commerce 
around the globe. Petrochemicals are needed for everything from 
clothing to cellphones, from hand sanitizer to the fibers in 
the masks we have all become accustomed to wearing. For this 
reason, Shell will continue to develop fossil fuel energy 
sources, yet even here we are seeing an energy transition. For 
example, Shell's production in the Gulf of Mexico is among the 
lowest in the world in greenhouse gas intensity, and we do not 
anticipate frontier exploration for new oil and gas 
repositories after 2025.
    We are committed to a leadership role in the energy 
transition and continuing to provide the life-sustaining and 
life-enabling products that Americans need. Shell is proud of 
its history providing energy to consumers in the United States 
and around the world, and we look forward to enabling a future 
where we all move to net zero emissions.
    Thank you for the opportunity to be here, and I would be 
happy to answer your questions.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. Mr. Sommers, you are now 
recognized for your testimony.

    STATEMENT OF MIKE SOMMERS, PRESIDENT AMERICAN PETROLEUM 
                           INSTITUTE

    Mr. Sommers. Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking Member Comer, 
Chairman Khanna, Ranking Member Norman, and members of the 
committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you 
today. My name is Mike Sommers, and I am president and chief 
executive officer of the American Petroleum Institute. API is 
the national trade association representing all segments of 
America's oil and natural gas industry. Our nearly 600 members, 
from large integrated companies to small independent operators, 
provide much of our Nation's energy, and develop safe, 
responsible operational standards. API's mission is to promote 
safety across the industry globally and to advocate for public 
policy in support of a strong, viable U.S. oil and natural gas 
sector.
    I would like to focus on three points. First, our member 
companies make products that enable modern life. Every day, the 
men and women of America's oil and natural gas industry provide 
the energy to maintain our quality of life, power our economy, 
and improve the condition of people here at home and around the 
globe. This industry meets Americans' needs with a strong 
commitment to safety, reliability, and environmental 
performance, and it is my high honor to work in this essential 
industry.
    Second, we meet today at a defining moment, one where 
energy demands are rising, and the focus on a cleaner 
environment has never been greater. Climate change is real, 
industrial activity contributes to it, and the challenges of 
ushering in a lower-carbon future are massive and intertwined, 
yet fundamental. It is the opportunity of our time to address 
climate change while meeting the world's growing need for 
energy.
    API released a series of policy proposals, industry 
actions, and initiatives in our Climate Action Framework to 
make a measurable difference in advancing energy and 
environmental progress. This plan is centered around advancing 
innovation and technology to tackle this challenge. The five 
main actions are, one, accelerating technology and innovation 
to reduce emissions while meeting growing energy needs; two, 
further mitigating emissions from operations to advance 
additional environmental progress; three, endorsing a carbon 
price policy by government to drive economy-wide market-based 
solutions; four, advancing cleaner fuels to provide lower 
carbon choices for consumers; five, driving climate reporting 
to provide consistency and transparency.
    In the meantime, API and its members are not waiting for a 
government mandate to address the real and serious challenge of 
climate change. Our view is that innovation is the foundation 
of meaningful action and, as such, our industry is making 
significant investments in carbon capture, hydrogen, and 
cleaner fuels. API companies are actively reducing methane 
emissions from their operations through technologies and other 
solutions. More work remains, but one area where experts agree 
is that oil and natural gas will continue to be the leading 
energy sources for decades to come, and it is important that we 
take action to reduce emissions while providing that energy.
    In closing, API supports climate action. Governments, 
industries, and consumers must accelerate policy and technology 
solutions together. Yet legislative proposals that punitively 
target American industry will reverse our Nation's energy 
leadership, harm our economy and American workers, and weaken 
our national security. We look forward to continuing to work 
with Congress and others to shape and advance effective energy 
and climate policy.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look 
forward to your questions.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. Ms. Clark, you are now 
recognized for your testimony.

   STATEMENT OF SUZANNE CLARK, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE 
               OFFICER, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

    Ms. Clark. Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking Member Comer, 
Chairman Khanna, Ranking Member Norman, distinguished members 
of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today.
    Since March, I've had the privilege to serve as the 
president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and I 
appreciate this opportunity to discuss our efforts to address 
climate change. The Chamber's position is clear: the climate is 
changing, and humans are contributing to these changes. 
Addressing the climate challenge with old solutions and 
advancing economic prosperity are not mutually exclusive. We 
can achieve both goals, and the Chamber is dedicated to doing 
so. The Chamber's message on climate is also clear: inaction is 
not an option. We advocate for market-based solutions to reduce 
emissions plus supporting U.S. competitiveness, national 
security, and working people across America. We have focused on 
effective climate solutions, and we see ample common ground for 
all sides to come together to advance policies that are 
practical, predictable, and durable.
    The American business community is essential to developing, 
financing, building, and operating the solutions needed to 
effectively combat climate change and meet our energy needs. 
Businesses are already taking action by investing in technology 
and enhancing their efficiency. Their actions are good for 
business, the economy, and our planet. The government also 
plays a critical role in our country's efforts to address 
climate change. We believe Congress must enact durable climate 
policy with bipartisan support. This will help ensure that 
policies withstand the changing priorities of different 
Administrations and reduce uncertainty for businesses.
    The Chamber supports policies that encourage innovation and 
investment in market-based climate solutions. We believe in 
transparent, well-designed market mechanisms that reduce 
emissions while supporting economic growth and job creation. 
Our implementation of these principles has led to meaningful 
progress over the past few years. Let me share a few examples.
    The Chamber played a leading role in the 2020 passage of 
the Energy Act, the most significant climate and energy 
legislation adopted in more than a decade. Over several years, 
we've mobilized business community support and partnered with 
NGO's and others to get the bill enacted. We worked closely 
with policymakers on both sides of the aisle to ensure that it 
contained innovation-focused measures that addressed climate 
change, promoted American technological leadership, and 
fostered economic growth. The Chamber also played a leading 
role in bipartisan legislation to implement a phase down of 
hydrofluorocarbons, which will significantly reduce emissions 
that contribute to global warming. We have called for direct 
regulations on methane emissions from oil and gas operations 
and worked with Congress to improve pre-disaster mitigation in 
its science policies. We also strongly supported the Biden 
Administration's decision to rejoin the Paris Climate 
Agreement, and we engaged early with this Administration and 
provided principles for its consideration as it revised the 
U.S. emission reduction commitments.
    Finally, this year, we organized a coalition in support of 
bipartisan infrastructure legislation that would advance 
efforts to decarbonize the economy. Building smart, modern, 
resilient infrastructure has long been a priority at the 
Chamber. The bipartisan infrastructure framework is exactly the 
type of bold, economy-growing action needed to address climate 
change. The Chamber and its members are proud to support it as 
standalone legislation.
    Our country has made positive strides forward and could 
build greater momentum with bipartisan cooperation on the 
solutions before us, and we must. More needs to be done to 
protect our planet for future generations. Earlier this year, 
President Biden's climate envoy, former Secretary of State, 
John Kerry, stated that 50 percent of the reductions we have to 
make to get to net zero are going to come from technologies we 
don't yet have. Whether or not 50 percent is the right figure, 
Secretary Kerry's central point is correct. We must take urgent 
action now to develop the technologies necessary to meet our 
climate goals. I'll say it again: inaction is not an option.
    For more than 100 years, the Chamber has advocated for pro-
growth policies that help businesses of all sizes create jobs, 
strengthen communities, and grow our economy. There is broad 
consensus across our membership and the business community that 
combatting climate change is an urgent issue requiring 
citizens, government, and business to work together. The 
Chamber remains dedicated to working with Congress to identify 
solutions that improve our environment.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. Mr. Crabtree, you are now 
recognized for your testimony. Mr. Crabtree.

STATEMENT OF NEAL CRABTREE, FORMER WELDING FOREMAN, KEYSTONE XL 
                            PIPELINE

    Mr. Crabtree. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney, and Ranking 
Member, and all the distinguished committee members. It's 
definitely not something that I'm proud of, but I may have been 
the first casualty of the Build Back Better plan. Three hours 
after President Biden's inauguration, I lost my job on the 
construction of the Keystone pipeline. Now, I realize this was 
only one project, but what I really feared was the consequences 
the decision would have on my future, and now I see those fears 
being realized. Not only did I lose an opportunity for 
employment on the Keystone, but I'm losing employment 
opportunities because energy companies seem to be hesitant to 
plan other needed projects that we need in this country. And 
all this is happening while the demand for energy is rising.
    The Build Back Better shouldn't mean the total neglect and 
destruction of our energy infrastructure as we know it. People 
from coast to coast are feeling the pain of rising energy 
prices, and there seems to be no thought given to the hundreds 
of thousands of workers in this industry or the millions of 
products that we use every single day that, you know, are 
provided by fossil fuels. And there shouldn't be a fear of a 
heating shortage in the Northeast this coming winter, yet here 
we are.
    And Americans need to know that there isn't a fuel 
shortage. That's not the cause of the rising prices. Rising 
prices are a direct result of the lack of infrastructure that 
it takes to get the products moved to where they are needed 
mostly, and it's mainly pipeline construction. The construction 
of the Atlantic Coast pipeline, the Constitution, the Penn East 
would've all taken much-needed energy to the Northeast this 
year. Instead of being built and being in service, they're now 
canceled, and they were canceled because of overregulation and 
a push for a green new energy sector that just isn't capable or 
reliable enough to provide the energy that we need right now. 
Every penny in the increase of energy takes roughly a billion 
dollars out of the pockets of Americans over a year's time. 
These can't be popular decisions, and I believe elections in 
the years to come will prove that.
    The CEOs and the presidents of the companies that are 
gathered here today have provided this country with something 
that we've all demanded, and that's clean, affordable, reliable 
energy. We've built military bases in other countries to 
protect resources. Our government has contributed to this, and 
to treat these CEOs as villains, I don't agree with it. The 
disruption of the Colonial pipeline earlier this year should've 
proven just how important the work that myself and these 
companies do really is. I mean, we took one pipeline that was 
down for one week, and we seemed to panic at the cost. I was 
hoping it would shed light on a bigger problem, and that is why 
we only have one pipeline servicing such an important part of 
this country. And the answer is simple. It's because it costs 
right now more to permit and plan a new pipeline than it does 
to actually build one and neglecting to add to the capacity 
with new pipelines is a dangerous thing for our country, just 
like neglecting roads and bridges.
    Now, I believe it's going to take an all-of-the-above 
approach for our energy future. Renewables are going to play a 
part. They will need to be developed, carbon technology needs 
to be developed, but we can't demonize the fossil fuel 
industry. It's only going to hurt the economy and the country. 
Now, I belong to a union that specializes in pipeline 
construction, and I've spent over 25 years, you know, 
developing the skills that I have, and I'm compensated well for 
it. And the government's idea of shutting down my industry and 
retraining me in another career is not realistic. I'm too far 
in life to be starting over in an entry-level position. It's 
just not realistic for me. Now, there's a whole generation of 
workers coming up, and if they want to pursue careers in the 
green energy, then I support that, just like I support private 
companies' rights to develop green energy. What I don't support 
is the government limiting my employment opportunities in my 
chosen field, especially when the product is in huge demand.
    To sum this up, the Administration is having a direct 
negative impact on energy prices in this country. They're 
having an impact on my ability to find work right now. My 
crisis right now isn't the climate. My crisis is the mortgage 
payments I have due every month, it's the food I need to put on 
my table, and it's the healthcare I need to provide to my 
family. And instead of demonizing these CEOs and presidents 
that are here today, I would like to thank them for the 
opportunities they've provided me and my family and my union to 
work in these past few decades. And I look forward to any 
questions you might have.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you so much.
    Pursuant to Rule 9(c), the chair authorizes an hour of 
extended questioning to be equally divided between the majority 
and the minority for this hearing. I have consulted with the 
ranking member and we have agreed to divide up the hour of 
extended questioning in four 15-minute blocks. First, the chair 
will ask questions, then the ranking member, then Mr. Khanna, 
and then Mr. Norman. The ranking member intends to yield a 
portion of his time to Mr. Brady and Mr. Graves.
    And without objection, both members are authorized to 
participate in today's hearing.
    With that, I now recognize myself for 15 minutes, and I 
want to start with a few simple questions, and I would 
appreciate a ``yes'' or ``no'' answer on each of them.
    Mr. Woods, CEO of Exxon, do you agree that climate change 
is real?
    Mr. Woods. Yes.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. Mr. Lawler, CEO of BP 
America, do you agree that climate change is caused by human 
activities?
    Mr. Lawler. Yes.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Mr. Wirth, CEO of Chevron, do you agree 
that burning fossil fuels is a significant cause of climate 
change?
    Mr. Wirth. Chairwoman, we have been clear on where we 
stand, and we accept the scientific consensus that the use of 
fossil fuels contributes to climate change.
    Chairwoman Maloney. So that I am taking as a ``yes.'' Ms. 
Watkins, president of Shell, the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change released a new report in August concluding that 
climate change is widespread, rapid, and intensifying. The 
Secretary General of the United Nations called the report, and 
I am quoting, ``a Code Red for humanity,'' and said, ``The 
alarm bells are deafening, and the evidence is irrefutable.'' 
Ms. Watkins, do you agree that addressing climate change is now 
a Code Red for humanity? ``Yes'' or ``no,'' please.
    Ms. Watkins. Chairwoman, Shell agrees that this is an 
urgent issue that needs addressing by companies, governments, 
and society.
    Chairwoman Maloney. And it is not just the United Nations 
that called it a Code Red. Last week, the Defense Department 
issued a report calling climate change ``an existential threat 
to our Nation and the world.'' Ms. Watkins, do you agree 
climate change is a threat to our existence?
    Ms. Watkins. Chairwoman, I agree that climate change is one 
of the biggest challenges that we have in the world today, 
which is why, at Shell, we are in action on providing lower and 
no carbon products to our customers. We believe this is 
something we are all in together. We need to work in 
collaboration with society, with governments, with other 
companies, and other industries.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Well, do you agree that it is an 
existential threat?
    Ms. Watkins. I agree.
    Chairwoman Maloney. ``Yes'' or ``no.''
    Ms. Watkins. I agree that this is a defining challenge for 
our generation, absolutely.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Well, let me put it another way. Does 
anyone on the panel disagree with the statement from the United 
States and the Defense Department that climate change is an 
existential threat to our existence? Does anyone disagree?
    [No response.]
    Chairwoman Maloney. So the truth is clear. Climate change 
is real, burning fossil fuels is the primary cause of this 
crisis, and it is urgent that we fix it. This is the first time 
each of you has told Congress this and the companies that you 
represent, and it is significant and important. Thank you. But 
it is also true that if it weren't for the actions of the Big 
Oil companies, we might have taken action to fix this problem 
decades ago.
    Mr. Woods, I want to ask you about some public statements 
that your predecessor, Lee Raymond, made in 1996 and 1997 as 
the world was debating an agreement to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions known as the Kyoto Protocol. Here is what Mr. Raymond 
said in 1996, and I quote: ``Currently, the scientific evidence 
is inconclusive as to whether human activities are having a 
significant effect on the global climate.'' And I would like to 
place his statement in the record, without objection.
    Chairwoman Maloney. And this was no slip of the tongue. In 
1997, he gave another speech where he denounced the effects in 
Kyoto and said, ``The case for global warming is far from 
airtight.'' Mr. Woods, when Exxon CEO made these remarks about 
the inconclusive nature of the scientific evidence, were they 
consistent with the views of Exxon's own scientists?
    Mr. Woods. Yes. Chairman, thank you for the question. I 
appreciate the opportunity to address that. Our understanding 
of the science has been aligned with the consensus of the 
scientific community as far back as 20 years ago when you 
referenced our chairman at that time's comments. And as science 
has evolved and developed, our understanding has evolved and 
developed as has our work and position on the statement.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Well, as you make your statement, I am 
reminded of another hearing that we had with the tobacco 
industry. And we had all the executives seated in this room, 
and they were asked about their statements from their companies 
that the science was uncertain, and they said they did not 
believe that nicotine was addictive. Well, it came out that 
they lied. Tobacco nicotine was very addictive, and now I am 
hearing from you that the science that was reported publicly 
where your executives were denying climate change, we know that 
your scientists internally were saying that it is a reality. So 
I was hoping that you would not be like the tobacco industry 
was and lie about this, and I was hoping that you would be 
better than the tobacco industry and that you would have come 
out with the truth, and I am disappointed with the statement 
that you made.
    James Black was an Exxon scientist, and I would like to put 
up on the screen what he told the company's top executives in a 
secret briefing back in 1978, more than 40 years ago. And he 
said, and I quote, ``There is a general scientific agreement 
that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the 
global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the 
burning of fossil fuels.'' And Mr. Black was not the only Exxon 
scientist to recognize that burning fossil fuels would cause 
dangerous climate change. In 1982, Roger Cohen, one of Exxon's 
most senior scientists, wrote a private letter to Exxon's 
management, and I am putting it the record.
    Chairwoman Maloney. He said there was a ``scientific 
consensus about the impact of increased carbon dioxide on the 
climate,'' and there was ``unanimous agreement in the 
scientific community'' that doubling carbon dioxide levels 
would lead to significant climate change. So I am asking you, 
Mr. Woods, do you agree there is an inconsistency between what 
Mr. Raymond, the Exxon CEO, told the public and what Mr. Black 
and Mr. Cohen, both Exxon scientists, told top executives?
    Mr. Woods. Chairman, no, I do not agree that there was an 
inconsistency. If you look at the full extent of that report, 
you will find that the comments in the report and that briefing 
to our management committee, which was not a secret meeting, 
was entirely consistent with where the Intergovernmental Panel 
on Climate Change was and the general consensus of the 
scientific community. And I think our position on that has 
continued to evolve with the scientific community. I think our 
messaging has been that this is a complex problem that is going 
to require thoughtful, practical solutions, and that has been 
something that we have continued to emphasize over time.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Reclaiming my time, I think the quotes 
speak for themselves. I am putting them in the record. There is 
a clear conflict between what the Exxon CEO told the public and 
what Exxon scientists were warning privately for years, but you 
don't need to take my word for it. In 2019, two former Exxon 
scientists testified in this very hearing room. They were here 
with the tobacco executives, and they testified before 
Representative Raskin's subcommittee. They said Mr. Raymond's 
statements were just plain wrong. One former Exxon scientist, 
Dr. Martin Hoffert, testified, and I quote, ``Exxon was 
publicly promoting views that its own scientists knew were 
wrong, and we know that because we were the major groups 
working on this.''
    And the disinformation from Exxon did not end there. In 
2000, Exxon ran an advertisement in The New York Times 
entitled, ``Unsettled Science.'' And it said, and I quote, 
``Even less is known about the potential positive or negative 
impacts of climate change. In fact, many academic studies and 
field experiments have demonstrated that increased levels of 
carbon dioxide can promote crop and forest growth.'' So
    Mr. Woods, was this statement that climate change could 
actually be positive for our planet consistent with the private 
views of Exxon's scientists?
    Mr. Woods. Chairwoman, if you read the full article that 
was advertised that you reference there, it concludes with the 
statement that says we know enough now that governments, 
people, and companies should be taking reasonable action to 
address the risk of climate change. So again, I would come back 
and say that our position in this space has been consistent 
with the general consensus in the scientific community. Our 
research was in line with that. It was a small portion----
    Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you so much. Reclaiming my time. 
The documents tell a different story. Let me read you an 
excerpt from a 1982 memo which I would like to place in the 
record that M.B. Glaser, Exxon's manager of environmental 
affairs, sent to Exxon management about the potential impacts 
of climate change. And he wrote, ``There are some potentially 
catastrophic events that should be considered.'' He said, 
``Those events could include melting ice caps and flooding 
along the East Coast, including in Florida and Washington.'' 
And another private memo from 1981 issued similar warnings. Mr. 
Cohen, a top Exxon scientist, wrote that it was distinctly 
possible that climate change would ``produce effects which will 
indeed be catastrophic, at least for a substantial fraction of 
the earth's population.'' And that also, unanimous consent to 
place in the record.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Mr. Woods, given these grave warnings 
from Exxon's own scientists over and over and over again, do 
you believe that it was ethical for Exxon to run a New York 
Times advertisement that downplayed--downplayed--the risk and 
instead highlighted the potential positive impact of climate 
change?
    Mr. Woods. Chairman, I would again say if you look at the 
full context of the memos that you are referencing, the 
messaging that came across in those full memos is very 
consistent with what the general consensus of the scientific 
community was. And our advertorial that you mentioned again 
concluded that there is enough knowledge to know that we should 
be taking action, that people, governments, and companies 
should respond and take practical reasonable action. And that 
was consistent with where the scientific community was at the 
time, and as time has progressed, we have continued to maintain 
a position that has evolved with science and is today 
consistent with the science.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Our witnesses today would like you to 
think that their actions that I have laid out and put in the 
record are ancient history, but they are not. Just this year, 
an Exxon senior lobbyist, Keith McCoy, was caught on a video 
boasting about these efforts, these efforts that deceived. 
Let's play that clip now, please.
    [Video shown.]
    Chairwoman Maloney. And how did Exxon respond? Did they 
come clean about this shocking conduct? No. Mr. Woods called 
Mr. McCoy's comments inaccurate and then they fired him, and 
they are obviously lying like the tobacco executives were. So I 
want to ask each of the witnesses here today representing 
fossil fuel companies and trade associations to take a simple 
pledge. I want each of you to affirm that your organization 
will no longer spend any money, either directly or indirectly, 
to oppose efforts to reduce emissions and address climate 
change. Ms. Watkins, will you take that pledge on behalf of 
Shell?
    Ms. Watkins. Chairwoman Maloney, we spend a lot of money in 
lobbying for climate policy right now, and I can pledge that 
we----
    Chairwoman Maloney. Will you take that pledge? ``Yes'' or 
``no.'' If you just want to filibuster, I will take it as a 
``no.'' ``Yes'' or ``no,'' will you take that pledge that you 
will stop spending money with dishonest----
    Ms. Watkins. I will pledge that we will continue to spend 
our money on climate policy advocacy as we have for many years 
now.
    Chairwoman Maloney. So in the interest of time, let me ask 
the rest of the industry representatives on this panel, do any 
of you refuse to take this pledge? If you refuse to take this 
pledge, will you please just raise your hand?
    Mr. Lawler. Chairwoman Maloney, what I would say is that we 
have stopped all reputational advertising at BP, but we do 
advocate----
    Chairwoman Maloney. But will you take the pledge? I know 
that you have taken steps in the right direction. I heard that 
in your testimony. Thank you. Will you take the pledge? ``Yes'' 
or ``no.''
    Mr. Lawler. Well, for your specific pledge, what we are 
pledging to do is advocate for low carbon policies that do, in 
fact, take the company and the world to net zero. That is the 
pledge I am willing to commit to.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Well, I am asking is----
    Mr. Comer. Madam Chair?
    Chairwoman Maloney.--if you will stop spending money either 
directly or indirectly to oppose efforts to reduce emissions 
and address climate change. Just stop spending money.
    Mr. Comer. Madam Chair?
    Chairwoman Maloney. That is all lies. OK. I take it that 
you don't want to take the pledge. All right. I hope that----
    Mr. Comer. Madam Chair?
    Chairwoman Maloney. I hope that after----
    Mr. Comer. We are nearly two minutes over.
    Chairwoman Maloney. OK. May I just close for one second? I 
hope that after 40 years of misleading the public to block 
climate action, our Nation's oil and gas industry will finally 
change its behavior and join the many good corporate citizens, 
community leaders, and scientists who are working together to 
save our planet and our children.
    I now yield to my good friend and colleague, Ranking Member 
Comer.
    Mr. Comer. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Crabtree, thank you 
for appearing here before the committee today, and I would like 
to ask you what it is like to be a worker in this Biden 
economy. How long had Joe Biden been President before you were 
fired from your position working for the Keystone pipeline?
    Mr. Crabtree. Thank you for the question, but I think I 
made that clear in my opening statement that it was three hours 
after I lost my job. Now, I have got to be truthful, and I have 
got to be fair. I have got to work since then, but most of the 
work that we are doing now is kind of maintaining the aging 
infrastructure of the pipeline systems that we have in this 
country now. And like I said in my testimony, not adding 
additional capacity when there is still such a great demand for 
it is causing these fuel prices to rise, and to me, it is a 
serious national security issue when we have to write letters 
to OPEC asking for more oil. It is a serious issue when we----
    Mr. Comer. I couldn't agree more.
    Mr. Crabtree [continuing]. Consider drawing oil out of the 
strategic petroleum reserve. The strategic petroleum reserve 
wasn't put in place to bail out incompetent decisions----
    Mr. Comer. Let me say. We are going to talk a lot about 
that during this hearing, and I appreciate that. But my next 
question, did President Biden or anyone from the White House 
ever apologize to you for creating a situation where you lost 
your job immediately upon his taking office?
    Mr. Crabtree. Well, of course not. I am just a simple 
welder. I wouldn't expect an apology. It probably wouldn't have 
been meant much to me, you know. An apology isn't going to put 
food on my table. An apology doesn't pay my bills. Being able 
to work is what I need.
    Mr. Comer. Absolutely. Absolutely. Now, last week, 
President Biden said that gas prices won't go down until 2022, 
and he said during his town hall when asked what he was going 
to do to reduce gas prices, he didn't have an answer on that. 
What, in your opinion, impact does shutting down one pipeline, 
in this case, Keystone, have on energy prices?
    Mr. Crabtree. Well, I can give you a number. No. 1 is 
transportation costs. This pipeline was going to replace the 
transportation. This oil has already been coming to the 
country. We are using it, and it is coming in by rail, and when 
you can build a pipeline, you can cut transportation costs by 
nearly a third.
    Mr. Comer. And probably reduce your carbon footprint at the 
same time, right?
    Mr. Crabtree. Exactly. This was a pipeline that was going 
to run off of green energy. A lot of people don't know that. 
And No. 2 is market speculation. You know, the country has seen 
what was happening, you know, the very first thing that 
President Biden done. And when you see an attack on the 
industry like that, you know, some of the prices, you know, on 
the markets, a lot of it is speculation. They see this attack 
on it, and you get people buying up contracts because they are 
worried about not being able to have any.
    Mr. Comer. Well, I tell you, I hate to see what has 
happened to you and so many other union workers in America with 
the disastrous Biden energy policies. It has just been a 
terrible time in America to be a worker in this Biden economy. 
It has been a good time to be on welfare and someone who 
doesn't work or works from home, but a terrible time to be a 
worker.
    I want to shift gears and ask quick questions to the oil 
and gas CEOs. I am going to start with Mr. Woods, and we are 
going to try to run down these real quick because I am going to 
yield to Kevin Brady momentarily. But, Mr. Woods, how long have 
you been CEO of Exxon?
    Mr. Woods. Since 2017.
    Mr. Comer. Mr. Woods, in your time as CEO, have you ever 
approved a climate disinformation campaign?
    Mr. Woods. I have not.
    Mr. Comer. Ms. Watkins, how long have you been president of 
Shell?
    Ms. Watkins. For three years.
    Mr. Comer. Ms. Watkins, in your time as CEO, have you ever 
approved a disinformation campaign?
    Ms. Watkins. No, I have not.
    Mr. Comer. Mr. Wirth, how long have you been CEO of 
Chevron?
    Mr. Wirth. For almost four years, Congressman.
    Mr. Comer. Mr. Wirth, in your time as CEO, have you ever 
approved a disinformation campaign?
    Mr. Wirth. I have never approved a disinformation campaign.
    Mr. Comer. Mr. Lawler, how long have you been CEO of BP 
America?
    Mr. Lawler. About a year and a half.
    Mr. Comer. Mr. Lawler, in your time as CEO, have you ever 
approved a disinformation campaign?
    Mr. Lawler. No, I have not.
    Mr. Comer. Well, thank you all for being here and answering 
my questions. We are going to have a lot of questions 
throughout the day. I look forward to working with the oil and 
gas industry to create more jobs here in America. I would now 
like to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr. 
Brady, the ranking member on the Committee of Ways and Means.
    Mr. Brady. Thank you, Ranking Member Comer, for having me 
this morning, and to Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you to America's 
affordable energy leaders for joining us today.
    American-made energy boasts an enviable track record of 
hiring, training, promoting, and empowering all Americans. I 
have seen this firsthand where our energy companies are 
providing good-paying jobs, quality healthcare, and secure 
retirement for workers from the lowest skills to the brightest 
researchers in the world with remarkable opportunities for 
women and people of color. The success of this industry isn't 
just important to my state of Texas, but important to the 
success of our Nation where we recognize good-paying jobs and 
rising paychecks do so much more to lift Americans out of 
poverty than the promise of never-ending government checks.
    Today's disappointing economic report points out why good-
paying energy jobs should be protected. Today's report was 
awful, and if you take out the inventories, America's growth 
last quarter was zero. The President is a disturbing 0 for 3 in 
meeting quarterly projections for growth this year, even with 
expectations dumbed down in some cases by 80 percent or more. 
The President's best economic growth peaked last spring, and he 
remains nearly a million jobs short of his promises. He is 
making an alarming labor shortage worse for Main Street 
businesses and is demanding more government stimulus that will 
drive prices up higher and longer.
    Too many Americans have lost faith, and the President now 
faces serious questions about his competency to heal our 
economy. Part of that is due to a relentless attack on American 
energy workers by the Administration and this Democratic 
Congress, a taxation and regulatory attack that could kill over 
a million-and-a-half good-paying American energy jobs over time 
and drive prices even higher for struggling families and Main 
Street businesses. Ironically, for an Administration that has 
made climate change a central focus, these attacks damage the 
very industry that holds the key to addressing greenhouse gas 
emissions around the world in a smart way, that raises the 
standard of living here in America and our poorer nations as 
friends.
    The solution to climate change isn't to drive energy prices 
up higher for everyone and kill off American energy jobs. That 
is flat earth thinking. The smart solution is to make 
affordable energy cleaner through technology, and then American 
technology, tax and tariff free, to help the entire world solve 
our climate challenges. This industry has already proven it can 
increase production of American energy to meet our growing 
demand while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This industry 
continues to invest more in research, innovation, and 
technology to make affordable energy cleaner than any other 
industry. Instead of vilifying them and trying to end their 
existence, Congress should be working with them to accelerate 
this biology and clear the path for sharing it with the world.
    Renewables do play a big role in reducing emissions, but 
natural gas is the real bridge to the future. Since the major 
shift away from coal and natural gas, the U.S. has reduced 
carbon dioxide emissions by 32 percent more. Affordable energy 
is the way to lift Americans out of poverty. It is the key to 
ensuring that low-and middle-income Americans can grow and 
thrive. And instead of demonizing the very industry whose 
success has made our country independent and secure, instead of 
raising energy prices on those who can least afford it, let's 
empower America's innovators. Let's rebuild the momentum we 
made in unleashing LNG and crude oil exports and use that 
success to make America a leader in discovering new clean 
energy technology. There is a smart way to transition to a 
cleaner energy future, and it is time both political parties in 
Congress joined forces with these energy leaders to achieve it.
    With that, Ranking Member Comer, I yield back.
    Mr. Comer. Thank you. Now I would like to yield the balance 
of my time to Garret Graves from Louisiana, the ranking member 
on the Select Committee on Climate Crisis.
    Mr. Graves. Thank you, Ranking Member Comer, and I want to 
thank the chair for allowing us to participate today.
    I want to first just point out, Madam Chair, that I am 
going to take a guess that every single person that came to 
Washington this week, that they came here using some form of 
fossil fuel. Everybody. Madam Chair, I actually have two 
electric vehicles, and I have actually rigged up a solar 
generator to charge them, the most ridiculous and cost-
prohibitive thing I have ever seen in my life, but it is fun 
anyway. I am from South Louisiana. If projections are correct, 
then we are at absolutely ground zero--ground zero--for what is 
going to happen moving forward. We have some of the fastest 
subsiding straits in the world, so with sea rise, it means the 
fastest relative sea rise in the world. We also are home to 
some of the most robust oil and gas production in North 
America, and at the same time, we have one of the most 
productive ecosystems on the North American continent right 
there where all this energy production is occurring.
    Madam Chair, I also want you to know that when the 
Deepwater Horizon accident happened, I ended up being the lead 
trustee and the negotiator for the state of Louisiana. And in 
that settlement, I will tell you we reached the largest 
settlement in U.S. history from a single company, and I am 
proud of that because, you know what? There were actions that 
were wrong, and we held them accountable.
    I want to ask the witnesses a question. Maybe Mr. Sommers. 
If we stopped producing energy today, stopped producing oil and 
gas in the United States, ``yes'' or ``no,'' would there be a 
stoppage, or would folks cease to use oil and gas across the 
world? ``Yes'' or ``no.''
    Mr. Sommers. No, Congressman.
    Mr. Graves. No.
    Mr. Sommers. In fact, as you know, the world consumes about 
100 million barrels of oil every single day, and even during 
the worst part of the pandemic, the world was still consuming 
about 81 million barrels of oil every single day. So the world 
is going to continue to consume a lot of oil and natural gas 
from now and very long into the future.
    Mr. Graves. Great. Thank you. I want to go back, and I 
apologize. I was in and out because we had another hearing 
going on. I believe it was Shell, but I may be mistaken, that 
noted in their testimony that the most efficient energy 
production in terms of emissions on the globe, some of the most 
efficient on the globe, is actually offshore in the Gulf of 
Mexico. Could any of you confirm that, whoever noted it in your 
opening testimony, to make sure I heard that correctly?
    Ms. Watkins. Yes, Congressman. Hi, it is me, Gretchen 
Watkins from Shell. That is a fact. We are the largest operator 
in the Gulf of Mexico, and we are really proud that the oil and 
gas that we provide to the country from the U.S. Gulf of Mexico 
is the lowest greenhouse gas that we can possibly----
    Mr. Graves. So putting these two things together, if there 
is clearly going to be continued demand for energy, because 
there will because oil and gas has 32 times the energy density 
of the next closest renewable 32 times--so there is going to 
continue to be demand. We produce it most efficiently in the 
United States. Why would we stop? Everybody on this committee 
used it to get to work this week. Everybody did.
    You know, something else that is really interesting as we 
sit here and demonize the United States and these very people 
that are here today on the witness panel, is the United States 
has led the world. We have reduced emissions more than the next 
12 emissions-reducing countries combined. I am going to 
paraphrase a quote of the executive director of the 
International Energy Administration who said, ``The United 
States' progress on reducing emissions associated with energy 
is the most historic in world history.'' Madam Chair, these 
people on the panel, these are the people that did that.
    Mr. Sommers, could you tell me what primary source of 
energy resulted in this decrease in emissions?
    Mr. Sommers. It was natural gas, Congressman.
    Mr. Graves. Thank you very much. So natural gas, the very 
thing that we are talking about banning here. Madam Chair, I 
would like to read you a quote from a letter. ``Today we call 
on you to use all your authority to take timely action to 
pressure OPEC and cooperating countries to increase world oil 
supplies,'' OK? I will say it again. Asking OPEC to increase 
world oil supplies. You know which awful Republican Members of 
Congress or people asked for this? That would be Maria 
Cantwell, Senator Menendez, Senator Schumer, and Senator 
Markey, quote, May 18, 2018. And I would like to ask that this 
be included in the record.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
    Mr. Graves. Madam Chair, more recently, on August 12 of 
this year, a number of Democrat Members of Congress effectively 
asked the same thing. And as I heard noted earlier today, Jake 
Sullivan as well as other White House officials asked OPEC to 
increase oil production. If we produce it most efficiently, 
what are we doing by stopping it? Why? Clearly, we are going to 
see a 60-percent increase in global demand for energy. A 60-
percent increase. the strategy right now by throwing out all 
conventional energy production, OK, so we are going to move to 
solar. Guess who makes 90 percent of the solar panels? It is 
China. Guess who has 80 percent roughly of the rare earth and 
critical minerals in the world cornered? It is China. And by 
the way, they use slave and child labor to produce that.
    It simply doesn't make sense. These are the innovators. We 
have watched our own President, Madam Chair, shut down the 
Keystone pipeline, open up the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, shut 
down domestic energy production, asked Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, 
Iran, Nigeria, and others to produce more energy to address the 
growing demand in the United States and globally. I am just 
asking our own President to treat the United States like you 
are treating other countries.
    Last, Madam Chair, U.S. natural gas, as a result of the 
efficiency of these very people, we have a 42-47-percent lower 
emissions profile--lower emissions profile--than Russian gas 
being delivered to Europe or Asia. This is part of the solution 
as we move forward meeting this growing energy demand with 
solar, with wind, with geothermal, with nuclear, with oil and 
gas, and other efficient energy streams. It is against our 
interest to shut these things down. We need to be focused on 
the innovation, carbon capture storage, carbon capture 
utilization, and other complementary strategies to meet this 
growing demand. When the Clinton Administration stopped 
producing energy domestically, barrel for barrel, we imported 
more from Russia. It is a failed strategy which is not in the 
best interest of United States.
    I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Comer, 
do you yield back?
    Mr. Comer. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. OK. I now recognize Mr. Khanna, who is 
the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Environment, for 15 
minutes.
    Mr. Khanna. Thank you, Madam Chair. First, let me thank the 
witnesses for appearing today voluntarily. I don't have any 
interest in being adversarial. I actually want to see if we can 
get some positive commitments.
    Let me start out where I think we will agree. Mr. Woods, 
what is impressive is that in 1977, Exxon had a report that 
said, ``There is general scientific agreement that the most 
likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global 
climate change is through carbon dioxide release from the 
burning of fossil fuels.'' Mr. Woods, I assume you would agree 
with that Exxon conclusion, yes?
    Mr. Woods. Our work was consistent with what the scientific 
community was saying at the time, yes.
    Mr. Khanna. And in your role as CEO, as you told 
Representative Comer, you would never today endorse statements 
that blatantly contradict climate science, correct?
    Mr. Woods. Correct.
    Mr. Khanna. And so if an organization, for example, today 
were to say they do not believe in the linkage between fossil 
fuels and warming, I assume you would say that is false, 
correct?
    Mr. Woods. I wouldn't support that statement.
    Mr. Khanna. You would say it is false?
    Mr. Woods. In looking at the full context of the statement, 
I would make a judgment on that, but that is----
    Mr. Khanna. I mean, you would say it is false that there is 
no linkage between fossil fuels and warming, correct?
    Mr. Woods. The combustion of fossil fuels leads to 
emissions, which is linked to climate change, yes.
    Mr. Khanna. OK. And I assume you know that your former 
Exxon CEO, Lee Raymond, made exactly that statement in 2002, 
nearly 25 years after Exxon's report. He said he does not 
believe ``that the science establishes the linkage between 
fossil fuels and warming.'' I am glad you admitted that that 
statement is false, and I really don't want to dwell on the 
past. But in the spirit of giving you the chance to turn the 
page for the company, I assume you would acknowledge that Mr. 
Raymond's statement was a mistake and the company regrets it, 
correct?
    Mr. Woods. I think Mr. Raymond's statement was consistent 
with the science at the time. We have evolved----
    Mr. Khanna. I don't want to even argue that. Mr. Woods, I 
don't even want to argue that. We could go back and forth. You 
said it is a false statement. You know, when I make a statement 
that is wrong, when most people make a statement that is wrong, 
they say, OK, it is a mistake, we regret it. I am just asking 
you for that. I assume now that it is a false statement, that 
the company regrets making it and would acknowledge that, 
right?
    Mr. Woods. I think the expectation would be that we would 
look at that, the time it was said, and years ago that was 
consistent at the time.
    Mr. Khanna. But forget whether it was consistent or not. 
Can you just acknowledge that it was a mistake to make? If 
someone makes a mistake, just say it was a mistake and you 
regret that that statement was out there. Would you say that 
if----
    Mr. Woods. I don't think it is fair to judge something 25 
years ago with what we have learned since that time to today's 
standard.
    Mr. Khanna. Well, I am disappointed that you are not even 
willing to say that something is a mistake. It doesn't inspire 
a lot of confidence about, you know, introspection and going 
forward. I am surprised actually. I thought you would just say 
it is a mistake. It is not asking you much to say, yes, it is a 
mistake that someone put that out. Anyway, let me move on.
    The United Nations 2021 Production Gap Report says, ``To be 
consistent with the 1.5-degree pathway, oil and gas production 
would have to decline annually by four percent and three 
percent, respectively. The IEA's 2021 net zero roadmap calls 
for no new oil and gas developments.'' Mr. Lawler, BP has said 
that it supports economy-wide net zero greenhouse gas emission 
targets by 2050. You made a strong commitment actually to 
reduce oil and gas production by 40 percent by 2030. I assume 
you are doing this because you think it is important and part 
of the solution to the climate crisis. Is that correct?
    Mr. Lawler. That is correct, Mr. Khanna. What BP has 
aligned its strategy on is in accordance with the Paris 
Agreement. We have a new strategy. Just two years ago, just 
before COVID started, we put this new strategy into place.
    Mr. Khanna. Right. I don't want to cut you off. We have 
limited time. And so you believe that the oil and gas 
production must decline each year. Is that partly while you are 
doing this?
    Mr. Lawler. We think that is the best decision for BP and 
that is our contribution.
    Mr. Khanna. And, Ms. Watkins, Shell's Energy Transition 
Strategy says, ``We have set our net zero target so it is fully 
consistent with the Paris Agreement.'' And you today actually 
announced this new thing where you are going to be having a 50-
percent reduction on Scope 1 and 2, and you are also committed 
to a 1 to 2 percent year-end total oil production decline. Is 
that right?
    Ms. Watkins. Yes, that is correct.
    Mr. Khanna. Great. And I assume you are doing that that 
because you also believe, under the Paris Agreement, that it is 
important and that we need to have oil and gas production 
declining every year?
    Ms. Watkins. Congressman, what we do believe is that 
hydrocarbon demand needs to reduce if we are going to get to 
net zero by 2050, which is why we are also providing more and 
more low-and no-carbon energy----
    Mr. Khanna. Right, but you are committed to this 1 to 2 
percent reduction every year, right? I mean, that is your 
policy, correct?
    Ms. Watkins. It is, and----
    Mr. Khanna. And let me just turn now to Mr. Wirth. Chevron 
announced, unlike BP and Shell, earlier this year that you plan 
to increase, by 3.5 percent on a compound basis, your 
production. Is that correct, Mr. Wirth?
    Mr. Wirth. Congressman, our forward guidance would show 
that we will grow lower carbon production of traditional----
    Mr. Khanna. I am just asking are you going to be increasing 
your oil and gas production by 3.5 percent on an annual basis?
    Mr. Wirth. Chairman, we will increase our oil and gas 
production and reduce the carbon----
    Mr. Khanna. OK. So you are going to be increasing the 
production. And, Mr. Woods, you have said that you want to keep 
the oil and gas production flat. Is that correct?
    Mr. Woods. We are focused on meeting the needs of society, 
and whatever that need requires----
    Mr. Khanna. I don't need the American apple pie speech. It 
is just a factual question. You are going to keep it flat, 
right?
    Mr. Woods. We don't have----
    Mr. Khanna. So 40 percent reduction BP, 1 to 2 percent 
annual Shell, the Europeans, the American companies. Chevron is 
increasing. Exxon is increasing. Mr. Lawler, BP has said it 
is----
    Voice. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
    Mr. Khanna. No, not right now. BP has said that it supports 
economy-wide net zero greenhouse gas emissions. BP, clearly you 
are only one member, so I assume when you are saying ``economy-
wide,'' you believe other companies need to follow your lead in 
decreasing production. Would that be fair, Mr. Lawler?
    Mr. Lawler. Yes, sir, I think what we offered up is just a 
suggestion. You know, there are many approaches to net zero, 
and we certainly wouldn't----
    Mr. Khanna. I guess my question is this, Mr. Lawler. Do you 
believe that the science says that companies should go down 
every year?
    Mr. Lawler. Well, I think what we would agree with is the 
IPC report, the scientific consensus that action needs to be 
taken to lower emissions is real, it is significant, and BP is 
in action on that. And one example----
    Mr. Khanna. Let me just ask a ``yes'' or ``no'' question on 
this, Mr. Wirth. Are you embarrassed as an American company 
that your production is going up while the European 
counterparts are going down?
    Mr. Wirth. Congressman, as we have already heard, demand 
for energy is going up in the world.
    Mr. Khanna. OK. You are not embarrassed. I am just asking 
an open question. It is not a ``gotcha'' question. Do you 
commit to do anything to matching your European counterparts to 
try to bring the actual demand of oil production down?
    Mr. Wirth. Congressman, with all due respect, I am very 
proud of our company and what we do. I am proud of the 
companies in this----
    Mr. Khanna. No, you won't reduce----
    Mr. Wirth [continuing]. Pollution.
    Mr. Khanna. You won't. And, Mr. Woods, would you commit to 
matching your European counterparts to reducing the production 
of oil, like both Shell and BP are doing?
    Mr. Woods. We are committed to lowering our emissions, 
which----
    Mr. Khanna. No. Are you committed to lowering the 
production as the Paris Accords say or no? It is----
    Mr. Woods. The issue, Mr. Chairman----
    Mr. Khanna. It is a ``yes'' or ``no.'' You could explain 
why you are not, but are you committing? Could you commit to 
lowering production or not?
    Mr. Woods. We are going to lower emissions, which is the 
source of the issue that we are trying to address.
    Mr. Khanna. I will take that as a ``no.'' Let me move to a 
new point. Ms. Watkins, you know, so far you seem like the star 
here. Do you agree that electric vehicles are vital to 
decarbonization? I assume you do because you said the rise of 
electric vehicles is vital to decarbonizing road transport.
    Ms. Watkins. Yes, we believe that to be the case.
    Mr. Khanna. Great. Mr. Lawler, I assume you agree with this 
because you say energy use in road transport is key. It needs 
to be dominated by electrification.
    Mr. Lawler. Yes, sir. We believe that EVs are significant.
    Mr. Khanna. Great. Both of your companies, along with Exxon 
and Shell, support the American Petroleum Institute, and, Mr. 
Sommers, you are here. You are the head of API, and you said, 
``The government efforts to promote electric vehicles would 
leave everyday drivers high and dry, unfairly burden non-EV 
drivers, and be costly for taxpayers and consumers.'' In fact, 
you have been participating in ``state-by-state multimillion-
dollar battles to squelch utilities' plans to build charging 
stations across the country.'' Ms. Watkins, on this panel, with 
you is Mr. Sommers, the head of API. Will you take the 
opportunity today to tell him that his opposition to electric 
vehicles is wrong, and that instead of opposing tax credits for 
electric vehicles, he should support them?
    Ms. Watkins. Chairman Khanna, we are a member of the API 
for a number of reasons, and----
    Mr. Khanna. Yes, I know, and I respect that, but can you 
just tell him to stop the electric vehicle advertising? If you 
say that today, he will stop. You give them $10 million a year.
    Ms. Watkins. We have a number of ongoing conversations----
    Mr. Khanna. Would you just tell him that today? Just tell 
him please stop the electric vehicle advertising. It will help 
us in Congress. Just tell him to stop.
    Ms. Watkins. So I would like to speak on behalf of Shell, 
and here at Shell, we very much believe electric vehicles are 
part of the future, which is why we work with----
    Mr. Khanna. If you would tell him to stop, it would be 
really helpful, you know. It would help the President. He is 
really trying to do what you are asking the President to do. 
The other thing is I saw your positive statement today. I was 
really happy for a well-crafted methane fee. You know, who has 
been advertising against the methane fee? API. API. Half a 
million dollars in the last three months of Facebook 
advertising alone against the President's agenda on the methane 
fee that you supported this morning in your great statement. 
You added it. Your staff crafted the statement, and you said, 
no, we want to have a well-crafted methane fee. Can you please, 
please tell API to stop the advertising on the methane fee, 
against the methane fee?
    Ms. Watkins. There are several places where we are not 
fully aligned with the API. We have been----
    Mr. Khanna. Just tell him to stop. Mr. Lawler, anyone, will 
you tell them to stop? Mr. Lawler, will you tell him to stop 
the advertising?
    Mr. Lawler. Mr. Khanna, we have been in active 
communications with API now from the time I joined, and 
whenever there is a----
    Mr. Khanna. He is sitting right next to you on the virtual 
screen. Just say stop, you know. Just speak plainly. Say stop 
the advertising against electric vehicles. Stop the advertising 
against methane.
    Mr. Lawler. Well, I speak for BP, Mr. Khanna, and we have 
been supportive of the green climate portions of the----
    Mr. Khanna. Let ask you this. Mr. Woods, Mr. Wirth, this is 
your chance to redeem yourselves. Will you tell them to stop, 
API? If you are not doing the production stuff, can you tell 
API to stop that advertising, either of you?
    Mr. Wirth. Chairman Khanna, we engage in discussions on 
many policy issues at API. There is a diverse set of members, 
as Mr. Sommers said, over 600 members in this association.
    Mr. Khanna. You won't tell him to stop?
    Mr. Wirth. The members don't always agree on everything.
    Mr. Khanna. Let me ask you this. Total, as you know, they 
pulled their commitment to API because they said they can't be 
part of an organization that is engaged against the fight for 
climate change. Will each of you commit to leaving API if they 
continue to lobby against electric vehicles? Will any of you 
commit to leaving them if they are lobbying against electric 
vehicles?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Khanna. Here is what is so frustrating because I really 
don't think you are as bad as the CEOs of the past. I don't. I 
think you have tough jobs. You got there. You got a horrible 
record on stuff. You are figuring out how you don't get into 
litigation trouble while really trying to tell the truth, and 
it is a tough act. I mean, I don't envy you, and I don't 
believe you purposely want to be out there spreading climate 
disinformation. But you are funding these groups, and they are 
really having an impact. You know, they are they are spending 
millions of dollars in Congress to kill electric vehicles, and 
they are spending millions of dollars against the methane gas, 
and you could do something here. You could tell them to knock 
it off for the sake of the planet. You could end it. You could 
end that lobby. Would any of you take the opportunity to look 
at API and say stop it? Any of you?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Khanna. Could you commit, any of you? Ms. Watkins, come 
on. I mean, will you do something here? Would you commit to 
saying you are not going to fund any group that is going to 
engage in climate disinformation at least?
    Ms. Watkins. Chairman Khanna, what I will commit to is 
continuing to be an active member of the API. And we discuss 
many issues in API, some of which have to do with climate 
policy, and I am really pleased that----
    Mr. Khanna. Let me ask this. Would any of you commit to 
having an independent audit to verify that none of your funds 
are going for climate denial?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Khanna. Let me ask this. Raise your hand if you think 
the climate crisis is one of the most important crises that 
humanity faces? Just raise your hand. I think all of you do.
    [Hands raised.]
    Mr. Khanna. It is important? Yes. That is right. And, you 
know, I understand you fund things for a lot of reasons. You 
are the CEOs. You can't track all the details. But if your 
money is going to organizations that are against the 
fundamental values that you claim you stand for, don't you 
think you have some obligation to monitor where the money is 
going and to make some commitment today to the American people? 
Right now, your position to the American people, this is not 
``gotcha.'' This is like actually trying to understand what you 
said. You are saying we are just going to spend. We will have 
conversation. If they want to do false advertising, fine. We 
will talk to them behind the scenes. Are any of you today 
prepared to make any statement saying we are going to take 
accountability on something so important and stop funding 
groups that are actively engaged in any form of climate 
disinformation? I will give all of you the last word, so my 
time is up. Any form of commitment in any way, even with a 
bunch of weasel words, would be great. Please go. Everyone will 
have a chance to answer.
    Ms. Watkins. Chairman Khanna, I will start by saying that 
we have been issuing for the last several years trade 
association reports where we very clearly lay out with a great 
deal of transparency where we are aligned and where we are 
somewhat misaligned with trade associations. In fact, we left a 
trade association because we were so misaligned that we didn't 
see a way of getting back in alignment. We have been 
transparent about that, and I will commit to you today that we 
will continue to drive increased scrutiny on a number of areas 
around climate policy in that arena.
    Mr. Khanna. Mr. Lawler?
    Mr. Lawler. Yes, sir. So BP has 7,000 Chargemaster stations 
in the U.K. on their way to 70,000 charging stations by the end 
of the decade. We are very much for EV use. We advocate that 
within API and other organizations, and we will continue to do 
that, sir.
    Mr. Comer. Madam Chair, his time----
    Mr. Khanna. I just would ask that Mr. Wirth and Mr. Woods 
could just answer. I am not going to ask anything more. They 
went over a couple minutes.
    Chairwoman Maloney. OK.
    Mr. Khanna. Mr. Wirth and Mr. Woods, do you have anything?
    Mr. Wirth. Chairman Khanna----
    Chairwoman Maloney. Very quickly.
    Mr. Wirth. We engage with a number of organizations, and we 
don't control and may not always agree with the positions taken 
or statements made by industry groups and other organizations. 
We engage in constructive dialog. What I can tell you is our 
position is that climate change is real, the use of fossil 
fuels contributes to it, and we are committed to helping 
advance a lower carbon future.
    Mr. Woods. We make our positions very clear going into the 
trade associations and then we work with them to try to advance 
those positions, consistent with the broader view of the 
membership that each of the organization serves. And I would 
point out that API has evolved the climate position and 
supports carbon tax along with a number of other constructive 
climate policies.
    Chairwoman Maloney. OK.
    Mr. Khanna. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back, and I now 
recognize for an equivalent amount of time, Mr. Norman, who is 
the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Environment, for 
an equivalent amount of time.
    Mr. Norman. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney. For my 
questions, I would like to yield to Jim Jordan.
    Mr. Jordan. Oh, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The 
previous speaker used the word ``frustrating.'' I will tell you 
what is frustrating is a Member of Congress telling American 
oil and gas companies to reduce production at the same time the 
President United States is begging OPEC to increase production. 
That may be the dumbest thing I have ever heard, but that is 
the scenario we are in. God bless Chevron for saying they are 
going to increase production. What does the gentleman want, $8 
gasoline, $10 gasoline for the very families that we all 
represent? This is craziness what they are talking about. I 
yield back to the gentleman. Thank you for yielding me 30 
seconds.
    Mr. Norman. Thank you so much. Mr. Sommers, did you realize 
back several months ago at an Oversight hearing that I asked 
Ms. Greta Thunberg, who is a spokesman, you know, for the Green 
New Deal and other issues--she has 17.9 million followers. I 
asked her with China and India, how are we going to get them to 
cut their emissions when they are the leaders in the world and 
America has come down on emissions. Do you realize she said 
they were going to ask them to? Is this a proper response, in 
your opinion?
    Mr. Sommers. Thank you, Congressman, for your question. As 
you know, the United States accounts for about 12.6 percent of 
world emissions, and our emissions continue to go down year on 
year. China's emissions account for about 32.6 percent of world 
emissions, and their emissions continue to go up. The key point 
is that, yes, climate change is real and that we need to step 
up to the plate and do what we can to address the climate 
challenge, but at the same time, this is a global challenge. 
This isn't a challenge that can be taken on just by one company 
or by one country. We need a global solution to the climate 
challenge.
    But this industry has not waited for others to step up to 
the plate to deal with that challenge. In fact, earlier this 
year, the American Petroleum Institute put forward a very 
forward-looking position on climate change in API's Climate 
Action Framework. The interesting thing about that framework, 
Congressman, is that it is not just about what we are asking 
the government to do, but what the industry is committing to do 
to reduce climate change over time. And we are proud of that 
forward-looking agenda.
    But as you point out, this is a global challenge, and the 
world is going to continue to demand oil and gas for the 
future. The question I think lawmakers have to answer is 
whether the world is going to get that oil gas from the United 
States where it is produced cleaner, better, and safer, or 
whether they are going to get that oil and gas from countries 
that are hostile to American interests. I think the answer is 
clear, from our perspective.
    Mr. Norman. And the Administration is content to get our 
natural gas and oil, as Mr. Jordan said, and paying ungodly 
amounts in the future, if we can get gas from countries that 
don't like us. Does that make sense to you?
    Mr. Sommers. Congressman, thank you again for your 
question.
    Mr. Norman. Does that make sense?
    Mr. Sommers. No, sir.
    Mr. Norman. No, and nor does Greta Thunberg's answer, which 
was a Pollyannish answer saying, yes, we will ask them to be 
nice does not make sense. Mr. Sommers, isn't it true that most 
of the raw materials and manufacturing capacity for renewables 
necessary to execute Biden's zero-emissions goal comes from 
China?
    Mr. Sommers. That is the case, Congressman.
    Mr. Norman. And does China's ability to manufacture 
renewables cheaply have anything to do with the fact that their 
factories are powered by oil and gas or that their economy runs 
on 84-percent fossil fuels?
    Mr. Sommers. Congressman, the Chinese economy continues to 
expand not just oil and gas infrastructure, but, in fact, based 
on the data that we have seen, China is adding a coal plant a 
week. Their emissions continue to go up while American 
emissions continue to go down mainly because the United States 
has made a fuel switch from coal as the primary source of power 
to natural gas. And that is because natural gas prices have 
gotten lower as a consequence of the technological and 
innovative revolution that occurred in this country over the 
course of the last decade. We are able to find more of this 
energy here at home, and as a consequence of that, we have been 
actually able to reduce emissions while our production is going 
up. In fact, no country--no country--in the world has reduced 
emissions more than the United States, and it is because of the 
American oil and gas industry.
    Mr. Norman. And China is not being held to the same 
emission standards that we are, yet the Biden Administration 
and the questions you have had don't even address this. They 
are content to buy from countries that don't like us and let 
Americans suffer as they pay for not just gas, but every other 
commodity that they are trying to buy now.
    I now yield to Congresswoman Foxx.
    Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much for yielding. The title of 
this hearing suggests that ``Big Oil'' is running a 
disinformation campaign designed to prevent action on the 
climate. However, it is clear that this hearing is part of a 
Democrat-led disinformation campaign to distract from the Biden 
Administration's failed policies that are hurting average 
Americans.
    The Biden Administration has injected instability into the 
energy sector by canceling the Keystone XL pipeline and 
discouraging domestic exploration and new development. And once 
gas prices predictably started rising, President Biden even 
turned to our competitors, as has already been noted, in OPEC 
and asked them to bail him out. As of this morning, $3.39-per-
gallon gas is the average price of gas in America, which is the 
highest since the Obama-Biden Administration. Do we see a 
pattern here? This hurts families in my district and across the 
Nation who now have to decide which items on their grocery list 
they cannot buy and what trips they can no longer afford to 
take.
    Today's hearing is meant to distract from this harsh 
reality facing families and shift blame from the Biden 
Administration's failed policies to the private sector. And 
since the Democrats aren't interested in asking about this, I 
want to take a moment to ask Mr. Woods, Ms. Watkins, Mr. Wirth, 
Mr. Lawler to tell us what your companies are doing to 
transition to lower carbon energy.
    Mr. Woods. Well, thank you for the question, Congresswoman. 
It is an important one and one that we have been focused on for 
quite some time is striking the balance of continuing to meet 
the growing demand for energy while reducing emissions. Natural 
gas has been pointed out as one step toward replacing higher 
emission fuel systems. We are also working on reducing our own 
emissions at our plant, and from 2016 to 2020, as I have 
mentioned, we have reduced it by 11 percent and have plans for 
more aggressive reductions going forward.
    Ms. Foxx. OK. I am going to have to ask you to cut it real 
short because I only have about two minutes left. So the 
others, can you give me real short answers?
    Ms. Watkins. Congresswoman, thank you for the question. At 
Shell, we believe climate change is a real challenge that is 
facing the world. We plan to continue to play a role in that 
both by continuing to produce low greenhouse gas hydrocarbons 
here in the U.S., but over time, those will go down and 
increasing, hopefully, the demand from our customers in 
collaboration with governments for low-and no-carbon fuels, 
like electricity generated by solar or wind or like hydrogen. 
And so we are very much in action on both setting targets for 
ourselves, but also working with our customers, working with 
society in order to accelerate----
    Ms. Foxx. Thank you. Mr. Wirth?
    Mr. Wirth. Congresswoman, our strategy is simple: be a 
leader in low-carbon production of traditional energy that the 
world needs today while growing lower-carbon businesses, and we 
are doing this in three ways. First, we are taking steps toward 
net zero by 2050 for upstream Scope 1 and 2 emissions. Second, 
we are taking steps to address Scope 3 emissions by growing 
lower-carbon business lines and establishing a new metric for 
the full value chain of our business. And third, we have 
committed to invest more than $10 billion on lower-carbon and 
carbon reduction projects.
    Ms. Foxx. Thank you. Unfortunately, Mr. Lawler, I have 
almost run out of time, and I need to ask a question of Mr. 
Sommers. So I wonder if you could submit your answer in 
writing.
    Mr. Lawler. I would be happy to do so.
    Ms. Foxx. Mr. Sommers, despite some of the rhetoric from 
your critics, it is clear from the things you said and others 
have said that meaningful steps to reduce emissions from 
operations have already been done. Could you describe any other 
effort, in about 30 seconds, that are under way and some of the 
planned industry initiatives that haven't been mentioned?
    Mr. Sommers. Congresswoman, thank you and great to be with 
you today. First of all, the API Climate Action Framework, 
which can be found at API.org/climate, is our forward-leaning 
agenda to address the challenge of climate change. In addition 
to that, since 2017, the American Petroleum Institute has had a 
program called the Environmental Partnership, which is all 
about how we reduce methane emissions within our own 
operations. This program has had measurable success, and we are 
continuing to reduce methane operations within the oil and gas 
industry. We are proud of all that work, and we look forward to 
expanding that work over time.
    Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Sommers. I yield back to the 
gentleman from South Carolina.
    Mr. Norman. Thank you, Ms. Foxx. I now yield five minutes 
to Congressman Hice.
    Mr. Hice. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding, and I 
want to thank Chairwoman Maloney for giving this committee yet 
another opportunity, another platform to highlight the 
horrible, miserable, failed policies of the Biden 
Administration and the Democratic Party as a whole, and for 
also allowing this time yet again to exhibit the dereliction of 
duty of this committee to perform real oversight on pressing 
issues like the southern border, like global supply chain 
issues, and like the horrible withdrawal in Afghanistan, and 
yet to this day, the hundreds of who right now are left in 
Afghanistan while we are having hearings like this to 
supposedly investigate a misinformation campaign by the oil and 
gas companies.
    But let's talk about real misinformation. As it relates to 
climate change, Democrats and their friends in the media have 
morphed what is considered a worst-case climate scenario into 
what today is considered a most likely and sure to happen 
tomorrow kind of scenario. And it is all about the purposes of 
justifying an array of liberal socialist wish list priorities, 
such as the Green New Deal. Unfortunately, Democrats have 
shamelessly scared and frightened an entire generation of 
children in the fearing that the entire end of the world is 
just upon us. One of our colleagues said we only have 11 years 
left to save the planet--are you kidding me--shamelessly 
creating fear in society in a whole new generation. And yet the 
Green New Deal, which our colleague from New York, her own 
chief of staff admitted that the Green New Deal was not even 
about the environment, that it was more of a how do you change 
the entire economy kind of thing. It promises family 
sustainable wages. It promises medical and family leave, paid 
vacation, retirement security. It says nothing about the 
environment as a whole.
    Democrats have become masters of accusing others of the 
very thing they themselves are guilty of, and in this case, 
misinformation. It is misinformation meant to scare the public 
and ignore realities, realities like the truth that the United 
States has been reducing carbon emissions while China's 
emissions have been going through the roof. China now produces 
twice the carbon emissions as the United States and a quarter 
of all greenhouse gas emissions globally. China. Here is a 
country who detests freedom, detests democracy, detests human 
rights. They would love nothing more than for the United States 
to be crippled in our economy through these rosy sounding, 
nevertheless horrible policies being presented and crammed down 
the throats of the American people by the Democratic Party.
    And what has the Biden Administration done about it all? 
Well, ask Mr. Crabtree today and 11,000 others who have lost 
their jobs because of the horrible policy decisions of this 
Administration, and by the way, union jobs. Good-paying union 
jobs, which our Democrats love to crow about, and yet now these 
individuals have lost their jobs. The Biden Administration had 
no problem killing the Keystone pipeline, but, at the same 
time, no problem willing to establish Nord Stream 2. So here we 
go. Let's give Putin and the Russians everything they need, 
including economic and political leverage over Europe. What 
kind of Russian collusion was involved in that kind of deal I 
wonder.
    Yet the Biden Administration cannot escape the fact that 
the U.S. economy still relies on oil and gas for basic 
necessities, and yet their plan is let's decrease our own 
energy independence while increasing reliance upon some of the 
world's most unstable countries. And yet now, these companies 
that we are talking to today who are being villainized, are at 
the same time being begged by the Biden Administration to help 
reduce energy prices. The hypocrisy is insane.
    My time has expired, and with that, I will yield back to 
the gentleman from South Carolina. Thank you.
    Mr. Norman. Madam Chair, my time has expired.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton, 
is recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney, for this 
important hearing with fossil fuel companies. There is ample 
evidence that the fossil fuel industry has worked to deceive 
the public and sow doubt about climate science, and that has 
been going on for decades, but the tactics they are employing 
are not new. They are a mirror image of tactics used by tobacco 
companies decades ago. In 2019, Sharon Eubanks, a former 
Justice Department prosecutor, testified before this 
committee's Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Subcommittee that, 
similar to Big Tobacco, oil companies have--here I am quoting--
``denied that there was a consensus,'' and at the same time, 
their internal documents show they knew there was a consensus. 
Mr. Woods, are you familiar with a scientist by the name of 
Frederick Seitz? ``Yes'' or ``no.''
    Mr. Woods. No.
    Mr. Norton. All right. Dr. Seitz was a prominent scientist, 
even heading the National Academy of Science in the 1960's. 
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, in the 1990's 
and 2000's Dr. Seitz advised a number of ExxonMobil-funded 
groups on scientific research. At the same time, he published 
several articles questioning climate science, including a 1995 
Wall Street Journal piece arguing against a report issued by 
the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In 1998, 
he led a petition calling for the United States to leave the 
Kyoto Protocol. Dr. Seitz claimed in a letter with the petition 
that, and here again I am quoting, ``increased atmospheric 
carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.'' Mr. Woods, were 
you aware that before he began publicly questioning climate 
science, Dr. Seitz had a role advising tobacco companies on 
their medical research?
    Mr. Woods. No. I am not familiar with Dr. Seitz, so I don't 
have any of that context.
    Mr. Norton. In the 1970's and 80's, Dr. Seitz advised the 
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, helping oversee millions of 
dollars in research funding. He later explained that the 
tobacco companies ``didn't want us looking at the health 
effects of cigarette smoking.'' Big Oil tries to distinguish 
itself from Big Tobacco, but the fact is the disinformation 
campaign used for decades by the fossil fuel industry mirrors 
Big Tobacco itself and its playbook, injects uncertainty into 
the public discourse, undermines the science, all while 
continuing to rake in economic benefits. Ultimately, the 
tobacco industry was held accountable for its deception, but 
Big Oil has so far escaped accountability for its longstanding 
climate denial. And I hope that tide will begin to turn today 
just as it did with Big Tobacco executives.
    I thank you, and I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. The gentleman from Florida, 
Mr. Donalds, is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Donalds. Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, to the 
witnesses, the leaders of Exxon, Chevron, BP, Shell, I know 
that the climate activists in Twitter world which Dave 
Chappelle says doesn't exist, and he is right because it is 
just people who have nothing better to do but type on their 
keyboards, and we do it, too, here in Congress. But let's be 
very clear. You need an apology because what I witnessed today 
was just rank intimidation by the chair of this committee. 
Trying to get you to pledge on what you are going to spend your 
money on is a gross violation of the First Amendment. And just 
because we are Members of Congress, and we got microphones, and 
we pass laws does not mean that we also have the ability to 
infringe on your ability to organize, whether it is API or 
anybody else, or what you choose to spend your money on. It is 
disgusting. It is absolutely disgusting.
    Somebody needs to go call Merrick Garland and tell him to 
get in here and watch the intimidation that came from this very 
panel today because this is not about defending Big Oil or 
defending big anything. It is about defending the ability of 
people in our country to be free, say what they want, think 
what they want, spend their money how they choose. And if we 
are not going to be any better than the Chinese, how do we ever 
expect to beat them on the world stage when we are cutting our 
neck when it comes to energy production while they are burning 
more coal, they are increasing their emissions, and they are 
not showing up in Scotland? You know why they are not showing 
up in Scotland? Because they are interested in building an 
economy. They are interested in becoming the dominant economic 
player across the globe. They are interested in becoming the 
dominant military player across the globe while we joke around 
and mess around intimidating you guys, who, frankly, heat our 
homes, you cool our fridges, you keep our cars going. This is 
insane. So I am sorry for you, and I am sorry for the people in 
our country who have to witness shenanigans like this and 
witness circuses like this. That is why they call that one show 
on HBO, whatever it is, The Circus, because that is exactly 
what this is.
    Madam Chair, I am requesting that a letter be entered into 
the record. This is a letter written by Ranking Member Comer 
and the other ranking members on this committee that actually 
speaks to the chilling effect that has come from you, Madam 
Chair, asking you to stop intimidating companies, requesting 
information that is their First Amendment right to have that 
information. I ask that that be admitted into the record under 
unanimous consent.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
    Mr. Donalds. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question for 
Mr. Sommers now that we are done with that. Mr. Sommers, it was 
asked earlier of a lot of the executives if they believe in 
electronic vehicles, and it is a noble goal to have. But, Mr. 
Sommers, where does electricity production actually come from?
    Mr. Sommers. Thank you, Congressman. Before I address that 
question, I do want to clear one thing up, that a difference of 
views on electric vehicles is not climate disinformation. We as 
an organization support all forms of energy. We support the 
rapid advancement of electronic vehicles as well, but at the 
same time, what we don't agree with is that the Federal 
Government should be the ones that are funding that buildout of 
infrastructure. The concern is that as we build out service 
stations across the country, those service stations have been 
developed not by the Federal Government, but by private 
industry. And members on this panel themselves are investing in 
building out that infrastructure as is appropriate for the 
private sector. Second of all, I think your question is very, 
very important, which is, where does that energy come from. 
Most of the energy in the United States comes from natural gas. 
It has replaced coal as the primary source of energy in this 
country.
    Mr. Donalds. Let me ask you this question as a followup. So 
if we don't have natural gas, and obviously the Democrats are 
against coal, where would we actually get the electricity to 
power all of these electric cars? Where would it come from?
    Mr. Sommers. Well, Congressman, for most countries and for 
certainly the United States, there would be likely a fuel 
switch back from natural gas to coal. And because----
    Mr. Donalds. So real quick, and I don't mean to cut you off 
because you make a great point, but I got 30 seconds. It is 
important for the American people to understand that if you 
follow the idiocy that is in the bipartisan infrastructure 
agreement, which is going to make natural gas harder to 
procure, we are actually not going to have lower emissions. We 
are going to have higher because you are going to have to 
switch back to coal-fired plants. And just for the record, 
let's also say the world will always demand energy. If you are 
not getting it from us, where we actually do it more safely and 
more cleanly, you will get it from Russia, you will get it from 
China, and they don't care what the climate activists have to 
say on Twitter. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Cooper, is now 
recognized. Mr. Cooper.
    Mr. Cooper. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I would like to 
thank all the witnesses for being here today.
    I think the question before us is how do we transition the 
world to a zero-carbon economy as cheaply and as easily as 
possible. And most all the witnesses seem to be in favor of 
market-based solutions to this problem, including a price on 
carbon. So I would like each of the witnesses to answer, what 
is the right price of carbon? Mr. Lawler? Mr. Woods? Mr. Wirth?
    Mr. Lawler. Yes, sir. So, you know, BP has been an advocate 
of an economy-wide, market-based price on carbon for many, many 
years.
    Mr. Cooper. I would like the specific number, please, and I 
don't have much time, so please tell me the price for carbon 
that you would support.
    Mr. Lawler. So I don't have a specific price today to 
answer your question, but we do think it is the most efficient 
way to----
    Mr. Cooper. Mr. Woods?
    Mr. Woods. Congressman, it is a very important question. It 
depends on where you are trying to decarbonize at. We have 
proposed a very large-scale carbon reduction project in the 
Houston Ship Channel. That would require $100 a ton and 
depending on where you are and how close you are to different 
sequestration, that price will change.
    Mr. Cooper. Mr. Wirth?
    Mr. Wirth. Congressman, there are different circumstances 
and economies around the world. There are different carbon 
prices in economies around the world.
    Mr. Cooper. In the U.S.
    Mr. Wirth. A broad-based and transparent price is very 
important, and then a price that gradually moves into the 
economy----
    Mr. Cooper. What price? What price?
    Mr. Wirth. Congressman, there are different opinions on the 
number. I am talking about the----
    Mr. Cooper. I want your opinion.
    Mr. Wirth. Congressman, the cost of mitigating emissions is 
very different in different sectors of our economy, and 
eventually----
    Mr. Cooper. Ms. Watkins? Ms. Watkins?
    Mr. Wirth [continuing]. To get to the kinds of reductions 
that we aspire to, it will be a very high price over time.
    Mr. Cooper. Ms. Watkins, the price of carbon. What should 
it be?
    Ms. Watkins. Yes. We can't say a specific price right now.
    Mr. Cooper. OK.
    Ms. Watkins. We need to put this in place. It is a market-
based carbon price. It would need to be a very even playing 
field, and depending on what we are trying to decarbonize, the 
price will float with the market.
    Mr. Cooper. Well, the sooner we can reach a fair price on 
carbon, and I know it would fluctuate, the sooner we can 
achieve that market-based reform that you say that you are for. 
Another part of market-based reforms is whether you are truly a 
market-based entity or not, and I was wondering if we could 
agree on the amount of government subsidies that you receive 
every year. I think at the low estimate it is about $20 billion 
a year, but the IMF estimates that U.S. oil companies receive 
some $650 billion in direct and indirect subsidies every year. 
So can the four key oil executives agree on the amount by which 
they are subsidized, at least in the United States by the U.S. 
taxpayer? Is it $20 billion or is it $650 billion?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Cooper. Crickets. None of you have any idea how much 
you are being subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer?
    Mr. Wirth. Congressman, our products are taxed, not 
subsidized, and I can tell you that a number of the policies 
that get described as subsidies are very similar to those 
available to other industries and other companies, and they are 
important for American energy security, American energy 
investments, and American energy supply.
    Mr. Cooper. Well, when the tobacco companies were on the 
hot seat years ago, the first step that Congress took was to 
remove the subsidies for tobacco growing. That was the first 
step, and I think it is very important that we arrive at the 
degree of subsidies that are involved. I know that you are 
taxed, but you also have special provisions that only apply to 
oil and gas companies and don't apply to other firms. In 
aggregate, how much are those subsidies because those, by 
definition, would not be market based. Those are government 
policies that benefit your companies instead of other types of 
activities. How much are those subsidies?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Cooper. Crickets.
    Mr. Lawler. Congressman, I can't answer your question 
directly, but I would say, though, that a healthy oil and gas 
industry is very important to the transition for----
    Mr. Cooper. I agree. I agree.
    Mr. Lawler. And so----
    Mr. Cooper. I am wanting to find answers to market-based 
solutions which you say that you are for. Final point, 
shareholder activism, these upstart hedge funds. The front page 
of The Wall Street Journal today has advocates of Shell being 
broken up because apparently, they believe that more money 
could be made for investors by having a better-run company, and 
that shareholder activists have taken seats on ExxonMobil's 
board. I think that could be the market reform that might be 
faster than congressional action.
    I see that my time has expired. I thank the chair.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentlelady from New Mexico, Ms. Herrell, is recognized 
for five minutes.
    Ms. Herrell. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me start off by 
saying that I am so glad to have this hearing because I don't 
think you can truly understand the hypocrisy that happens in 
this Capitol and in this building unless you are watching it 
like we are today, or hearing it, or participating in it. And 
the saddest thing of all is we have a President who has tweeted 
about the million jobs he is going to create or the 4 million 
jobs he is going to create. And you know what is sad? He is 
creating jobs overseas, because the very people that heat our 
homes, that put us to work every day, that has a profound 
effect on our entire country in terms of national security and 
job creation that is under attack.
    And while this committee may not like you because your 
executives, because your companies have been successful, I just 
want to apologize for the decorum because thank you for what 
you have done. Thank you, every one of you, for creating the 
jobs and for bringing it home, for teaching us that we can be 
energy independent and that we can also have a very reliable 
and longstanding relationship with each and every one of you 
and the communities and the people that rely on you. And who we 
don't talk about, you know, are the seniors or the lower 
middle-class income people that cannot afford to heat their 
homes or will have to make decisions this year whether to buy 
food, or to heat their homes, or to buy gas. And this is just 
the tip of the iceberg because later today or sometime this 
week, or maybe this year, we are going to pass the most 
ridiculous bill in American history, the infrastructure 
reconciliation bill, that does nothing for the American people. 
So while you are getting beat down today, there are people here 
that believe in what you are doing, and we thank you for all of 
the innovation.
    But what I want to do is ask a couple of questions to Mr. 
Sommers. And this is really a no-brainer, but I am thinking if 
you get to answer the question maybe somebody will actually 
listen to you. What would happen to global emissions if my 
Democrat colleagues got their way and the United States stopped 
completely producing oil and gas?
    Mr. Sommers. Congresswoman, thank you for your question, 
and you represent one of the most prolific oil and gas 
districts in the country, representing the New Mexico side of 
the prolific Permian Basin. And as you know, oil and gas has 
led to a significant increase in jobs in your congressional 
district, and because of that, we have been able to reduce 
emissions because we have been able to find that oil and gas in 
more environmentally responsible ways. And for that matter, the 
state of New Mexico receives about 40 percent of its budget 
from the oil and gas industry.
    To answer your specific question, if the United States 
stopped using oil and gas, it is likely that there would be a 
reverse switch from the use of natural gas in our electricity 
generation to the use of coal. You know, in this industry, we 
need to remember what we at API call the energy trilemma. The 
energy trilemma is that for every energy source, it needs to be 
provided affordably, reliably, and cleaner, and so every source 
has to meet that same challenge. Within the oil and gas 
industry, we are working toward meeting that challenge every 
single day. There is a reason why U.S. emissions have continued 
to go down. Sixty-five percent of the decline in emissions in 
the last decade is a consequence of that fuel switch from coal 
to natural gas. We do not want to reverse that progress.
    Ms. Herrell. Right, but we are doing everything we can in 
this committee and on Capitol Hill to do just that, which I 
don't think people understand this isn't about just starting 
the car every day. This is about so many of our day-to-day 
projects touched by petroleum. In fact, I would just submit to 
saying anybody who has gotten a vaccination or is going to get 
one, thank you to the oil and gas industry because I would bet 
that almost every single one of these syringes has been touched 
by a petroleum product. But we don't want to give a heads up or 
pat on the back to the industry because we would rather sit you 
down in here and tear you down and make the public think that 
you are all bad, you are rich, and you don't care about 
anybody. We know better than that.
    And this is truly personal for me because you just said it. 
You know, 40 percent of my state budget comes from this 
industry. Communities in my state, in my district are 
completely made up of the men and women that serve, whether 
directly or indirectly, in jobs related to the industry. And 
while we sit here and think that we have got a better way, if 
it is all green and it is all good, then why are we subsidizing 
green new everything? Why are we pushing out the only industry 
that is reliable, affordable, and that we desperately need in 
our Nation to remain a global standing when it comes to energy 
dominance, when it comes to national security?
    I just want to thank all of you for being here today. I 
hope that what you are saying will resonate, and I hope you 
will get a chance to finish your sentences because it has been 
hard listening to you try to get your point made when you are 
being cutoff. And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Krishnamoorthi, is 
recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Wirth, you 
believe that ``climate change is one of the biggest challenges 
of our time.'' Correct, sir?
    Mr. Wirth. Congressman, I tried to be very clear on that 
earlier. We do believe that climate change is real. We accept 
the consensus and----
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Yes, sir. And on page three of your 
witness statement, you said you support the ``global net zero 
ambitions of the Paris Agreement,'' correct?
    Mr. Wirth. That is on page three of my statement, 
Congressman.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. In fact, on your October 11 press 
release, Chevron announced that it has targeted 2050 for having 
net zero emissions associated with the upstream operations of 
the company, correct?
    Mr. Wirth. We have announced a net zero aspiration for 
Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions for our equity upstream 
production worldwide.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. I am glad you mentioned that because 
you mentioned a couple of concepts in your documents. You talk 
about Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 emissions as well as 
something called portfolio carbon intensity. And emissions are 
the total or absolute amount of carbon or greenhouse gases 
created by Chevron, while carbon intensity has to do with the 
amount of carbon released per unit of oil and gas that you are 
drilling for. And I was looking at pages 2 through 4 of your 
sustainability report, sir, and you call them Scope 1, Scope 2, 
and Scope 3 emissions. Those are the overall or absolute 
emissions associated with your operations, right?
    Mr. Wirth. Congressman, there is a taxonomy for how 
emissions are classified that we apply as do companies across 
the economy, and Scope 1 emissions are defined as those 
directly associated with the operations of a company. Scope 2 
emissions are those associated with purchased electricity or 
steam. And Scope 3, there are actually 15 different categories 
of Scope 3 emissions. In the case of our company and our 
industry, Type 11 of Scope 3 has to do with the use of products 
and----
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Use of products, correct. Now, Mr. 
Wirth, according to page 42 of Chevron's proxy statement, you 
received $29 million in compensation for 2020, correct?
    Mr. Wirth. That is what is reported in our proxy.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And it appears that you received $33 
million in compensation in 2019 as well. I am looking at your 
compensation calculation on page 49 of the proxy statement, and 
it talks about how your comp relied on oil/gas flaring and 
methane intensity reductions, but none of your compensation 
whatsoever relied on a reduction in Scope 1, Scope 2, or Scope 
3 emissions, correct? It is not there. Nowhere on that page.
    Mr. Wirth. Congressman, it is in the fourth category which 
relates to health safety and environment, and there is a line 
in there that relates to achieving our greenhouse gas targets.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. No, there is something called 
greenhouse gas management, but it is related to intensity. I 
have the page right here. And so the main point is the case 
that you could have high overall or absolute emissions 
associated with your operations, or low or no overall emissions 
associated with your operations, but you would be receiving the 
same tens of millions of dollars as you do now. And that is a 
fundamental problem with your compensation system at Chevron, 
that you are not incentivized to reduce your carbon footprint, 
and that is a big reason why Chevron's pollutions continue to 
go up.
    Now, let's contrast that with that with Royal Dutch Shell 
which made an important announcement today. Ms. Watkins, you 
announced today a reduction of absolute emissions by 50 percent 
by 2030, correct?
    Ms. Watkins. That is correct.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And you also, interestingly, announced 
that those emissions would apply to Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 
3, so total emissions of the company, right?
    Ms. Watkins. So our 2030 target we announced today is for 
Scope 1 and 2. Our net zero emissions by 2050 include Scope 3.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. So by 2050, net zero across all three 
scopes, whereas as we know with Chevron, it is only Scope 1 and 
Scope 2, so not all the emissions. Now, Ms. Watkins, in a time 
of rising energy demand, why is it that you would say you are 
going to decline your oil production? Why would you give up the 
opportunity to supply that additional demand?
    Ms. Watkins. We believe that there is an opportunity. It is 
part of our powering and progress strategy to accelerate the 
demand for clean energy, which is why we are working very 
closely with our customers, and, in fact, we are working with 
industrial segments, sectors like the aviation industry, like 
heavy transport, like the marine industry, in order to 
accelerate the demand for clean energy products, because this 
isn't something we can do on our own. This is going to take a 
full collaborative effort between us, between society, and 
between the government.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan, is recognized.
    Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Crabtree, when did 
you lose your job?
    Mr. Crabtree. Thank you, Congressman. About three hours 
after the Presidential inauguration this year.
    Mr. Jordan. January 20, 2021, you lost your job. That is 
right?
    Mr. Crabtree. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Jordan. You know what has happened to the price of 
gasoline since that day?
    Mr. Crabtree. Well, I think everybody knows the answer to 
that question, Congressman. It has gone nowhere but up, just 
like we tried to warn.
    Mr. Jordan. It has increased dramatically, hasn't it? Over 
a dollar a gallon.
    Mr. Crabtree. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Jordan. Do you know what has happened to the company 
that was overseeing the Russian Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline? Do 
you know what happened to them?
    Mr. Crabtree. I believe they were allowed to finish 
construction. I know that for a fact.
    Mr. Jordan. Yes, the sanctions against them were waived. 
They were allowed to complete construction of that pipeline at 
the same time yours was closed down and you lost your job. Do 
you know what has happened to American energy independence 
since the day you were fired?
    Mr. Crabtree. Well, the word ``OPEC'' seems to be coming 
back in the media more these days, and I didn't hear that for a 
lot of years. So we have lost it. That is what has happened.
    Mr. Jordan. Yes. Mr. Sommers, are CO2 emissions in the 
United States lower today than they were 20 years ago?
    Mr. Sommers. They are, Congressman.
    Mr. Jordan. Significantly lower. Is that right?
    Mr. Sommers. They are significantly lower. In fact, CO2 
emissions from the power sector, in particular, are at the 
lowest level since 1978.
    Mr. Jordan. And that is because, you know, things like cap-
and-trade passed and regulations from the government caused you 
to lower them. Isn't that true?
    Mr. Sommers. Congressman, actually that is because of the 
innovation that has occurred----
    Mr. Jordan. Exactly.
    Mr. Sommers [continuing]. in the American oil and gas 
industry.
    Mr. Jordan. Exactly. Cap-and-trade didn't pass. It is not 
because of regulations from government. You guys did that on 
your own because it is just the right thing to do and it is 
good business, right?
    Mr. Sommers. That is right, Congressman. As I mentioned 
before, every energy source has to meet that energy trilemma--
affordable, reliable, and cleaner--and that is what this 
industry has delivered.
    Mr. Jordan. Ten months ago, was the United States of 
America energy independent, Mr. Sommers?
    Mr. Sommers. What I would say, Congressman, is that the 
United States was North American energy independent and well on 
our way to American energy independence.
    Mr. Jordan. We were exporting a lot, too, weren't we?
    Mr. Sommers. We were. Unfortunately, over the course of the 
last few months, we are actually getting oil into United States 
for the first time in a while.
    Mr. Jordan. Yes, that was my next question. So in 10 
months' time, we went from being energy independent to now we 
are importing oil, and we had the spectacle of the President of 
the United States begging OPEC to increase production. Is that 
accurate?
    Mr. Sommers. Well, Congressman, the U.S. was a net 
petroleum exporter for the first time since 1958 in the year 
2020. And, you know, we were very proud of being the world's 
largest producer of oil and natural gas as a consequence of the 
innovation and the technological revolution that has occurred 
in the American oil and gas industry.
    Mr. Jordan. Yes. I mean, I can't say it better than our 
colleague from Florida who spoke a few minutes ago, but in 10 
months' time, we have literally went from energy independence 
to the President of the United States begging OPEC to increase 
production, to now we are having to import some of our energy 
needs. We have went from $2 gas to $3, $4, $5. I was in 
California week-and-a-half ago, $5 gas. I saw it there, which 
costs families hundreds of dollars a month in transportation 
costs. I mean, Mr. Crabtree, I think in his testimony, said he 
still hasn't found a job, so not only did he lose his job 
because of the crazy energy policies of this government. His 
family is paying more for their transportation costs and other 
energy needs.
    And what do Democrats do today? They come in and badger 
companies, tell them to further reduce, in some cases, 
production of oil and gas, which is only going to exacerbate 
the problem. I mean, it literally may be the craziest thing I 
have ever heard, but that is where they are at. I don't think 
the American people are with them, though, and that is the good 
news. So I want to thank those companies who are actually 
increasing production. Mr. Sommers, I want to thank you for 
your testimony today. Mr. Crabtree, you deserve better, and 
hopefully with some changes that I think are coming, because I 
don't think the American people are going to tolerate this, 
hopefully you will be employed real soon, and we will get these 
energy prices back where the families of this great country 
deserve to have them.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Raskin, is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, Donald 
Trump's party of denialism is engaged in campaigns of 
propaganda and disinformation about climate change, which he 
said was a Chinese hoax; COVID-19, which he said would 
disappear by Easter of last year; the 2020 Presidential 
election, which he continues to claim that he won despite the 
fact that Joe Biden beat him by more than 7 million votes, 306 
to 232 in the Electoral College; and, of course, the violent 
January 6 insurrection, which he says really took place on 
November 3, and adding for good measure that the pro-Trump 
rioters greeted our police officers with hugs and kisses, which 
is presumably how more than 140 of them ended up injured with 
broken noses, necks, vertebrae, arms, legs, and so on.
    Trump's party has turned the denial of facts, science, and 
history into standard operating procedure, and we see the 
ideological machinery of lies working overtime today. But as 
astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson has observed, ``The great thing 
about science is that it is true whether or not you believe in 
it.'' So they don't believe in science, facts, or the U.S. 
Constitution. They don't believe in our elections anymore. They 
have positioned themselves outside of the constitutional order, 
attacking our constitutional order, but we believe in science 
and facts and the Constitution.
    Now, The Lancet report on the health effects of climate 
change told us last week that this is a civilizational 
emergency right now. Not in the future. Today. Rising 
temperatures, says The Washington Post, have led to higher 
rates of heat illness, causing farm workers to collapse in the 
fields and elderly people to die in their apartments. Insects 
carrying tropical diseases have multiplied and spread toward 
the Poles. The amount of plant pollen in the air is increasing, 
worsening asthma and other respiratory conditions, and on and 
on. Record drought, record flooding, record forest fires, 
record hurricanes of increasing frequency and velocity. We 
cannot afford any more propaganda campaigns by corporations 
subsidized by the government against public policies designed 
to save humanity.
    The First Amendment does not protect fraudulent commercial 
speech, despite everything you heard today. You can go back and 
check out McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, stating 
clearly that the government may and does punish fraud directly. 
Check out the Central Hudson case declaring that if commercial 
speech is fraudulent, it is no longer protected by the First 
Amendment and it may be regulated by the government. Mr. 
Lawler, do you accept that the First Amendment does not accept 
fraudulent commercial speech?
    Mr. Lawler. I wouldn't say that I am an expert on that 
particular topic.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Wirth, do you accept that the First 
Amendment does not protect fraudulent commercial speech?
    Mr. Wirth. Congressman, I am not a constitutional scholar, 
and I would trust those who are.
    Mr. Raskin. Ms. Watkins, do you accept that the First 
Amendment does not protect fraudulent commercial speech?
    Ms. Watkins. Congressman, I am not an expert on the legal 
aspects of this. I am sorry.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, Mr. Woods, your company has filed several 
briefs about this trying to use the First Amendment as a sword 
in litigation against Massachusetts Attorney General Healey. Do 
you accept that the First Amendment does not protect fraudulent 
speech?
    Mr. Woods. I am not a lawyer, sir.
    Mr. Raskin. Are you aware of the litigation that Exxon 
brought against Healey in Federal District Court in Texas?
    Mr. Woods. I am aware that we have had several suits filed 
against us, and we have hired lawyers to defend our rights.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, use your common sense, and I appreciate 
the fact you are not a lawyer. But using your common sense, do 
you think that a company has the right to lie, for example, 
about climate change, and then use the First Amendment as a 
camouflage and a shield against litigation?
    Mr. Woods. I don't believe companies should lie, and I 
would tell you that we do not do that.
    Mr. Raskin. But leaving that aside, because there might be 
a factual dispute on that particular contention, but do you 
believe if a company were to lie in commercial speech about 
something like climate change, it should not be protected by 
the First Amendment?
    Mr. Woods. I don't think companies should lie.
    Mr. Raskin. OK. And what if a company were to lie? Is that 
protected by the First Amendment?
    Mr. Woods. I think the legal system and our court systems 
are designed to deal with those types of issues.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, yes, indeed. In fact, you filed a brief 
in San Francisco v. Exxon, filed it in Texas District Court, 
and I would like to submit for the record the opinion by New 
York District Court Judge Valerie Caproni, dismissing Exxon's 
First Amendment claims.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would hope as we move 
forward, every person in America and every person on earth has 
an interest in us defeating this climate nightmare. And I would 
hope that the corporations which have received a lot of 
beneficence, a lot of bounty from the U.S. taxpayers, at the 
very least would not lie about climate change and would not try 
to drape themselves in the First Amendment in order to protect 
their lives.
    I yield back to you, Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Well, first we are going to hear from the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman. He is recognized for five minutes. And 
following that, we will have a 10-minute break at the request 
of our panelists today.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you. That was kind of a scary last 
couple minutes there.
    I will ask Mr. Sommers. You know, when you Google this 
stuff, at least I remember, you know, being a child growing up 
in the Milwaukee area, and it seems to me both the water and 
even more the air is just so much cleaner today than they were 
at the time. Could you give us some general comments about the 
amount of pollutants from cars, the amount of pollutants from 
energy plants, even coal plants replaced with coal plant, as 
far as the cleanliness of the air today compared to maybe 15 
years ago?
    Mr. Sommers. Congressman Grothman, thank you for your 
question, and it is great to be with you here today. You know, 
first of all, I think it is important to acknowledge that the 
United States leads the world in reducing greenhouse gas 
emissions, and, again, that is because of what this industry 
has done to produce more here in the United States. As I also 
said, the United States accounts for about 12.6 percent of 
world emissions, and that number continues to go down, while 
China's number is 32.5 percent of world emissions, and that 
number continues to go up, which is one of the reasons why we 
need global solutions as it relates to climate change. 
Additionally, the emissions that have come from the electricity 
sector are at their lowest level since 1978, and that is 
because of the fuel switch that has gone on from coal to 
natural gas.
    Mr. Grothman. Holy cow. Just a second here. You mean 
despite the fact the population of this country has gone 
through the roof and the amount of economic activity has gone 
through the roof, we have less pollutants coming from the 
energy sector than 40-plus years ago?
    Mr. Sommers. Congressman, in fact, obviously the United 
States population has continued to increase, and world 
population is expected to grow significantly over the next many 
years. And even the International Energy Agency expects that if 
every country were to meet its Paris climate goals, the world 
would still get 46 percent of its energy from oil and gas. So 
we need to make sure that we are making proper investments in 
the United States for that oil and gas because I believe, and I 
think most Americans believe, that it is important that we are 
getting our energy here at home rather than being dependent on 
foreign sources of energy where they are not produced nearly in 
the environmentally responsible way that they are produced here 
in the United States.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. I am sure we got a bunch of world 
travelers up there today. I am looking here on my phone, and it 
shows that Los Angeles, which I always thought was, you know, 
kind of a polluting city, has just a fraction of the amount of 
pollutants that we find in Shanghai, for example. As you guys 
get around the world, and we can start with you, Mr. Sommers, 
but other people, do you notice that pollution is more or less 
as you get around the globe compared to the United States?
    Mr. Sommers. Well, Congressman, as you know, we live in an 
environment where what happens in China affects the United 
States. In fact, the air in China today will be in California 
two days from now, which is why it is important that we address 
this issue from a global perspective while focusing on what we 
can do as a country to lower our emissions over time.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. I am told in other cities, China, maybe 
even Mexico City, India, pollutants in their major metropolitan 
areas are a lot higher than the United States. Is that true?
    Mr. Sommers. That is the case, Congressman, mainly because 
they have not been afforded the same fuel switch that has 
occurred in the United States from coal to natural gas. So what 
we need to do in the United----
    Mr. Grothman. Somebody told me they are building over 100 
coal plants in China right now. Is that true?
    Mr. Sommers. That is my understanding as well, Congressman, 
but what we want to do here in the United States is we have 
abundant supplies of natural gas, and we want to make sure that 
we are exporting American environmental progress to the rest of 
the world. We can do that through liquefied natural gas. We 
have the resources. We want to share that environmental 
progress with the rest of the world.
    Mr. Grothman. Well, some people like to slow down economic 
progress here and kind of push that economic progress to other 
countries. Is that going to result in worldwide pollutants 
going up or down as we kind of push manufacturing to other 
countries.
    Mr. Sommers. Congressman, as you know, for most of the 
world, the choice is not between coal and renewables. It is a 
choice between coal and natural gas, which is why we think it 
is important that the United States continues to produce so 
that----
    Mr. Grothman. OK. Just one more thing from our panelists.
    Mr. Sommers [continuing]. Across the world.
    Mr. Grothman. You guys all have a good story to tell. Don't 
be afraid to tell people how much cleaner things are than the 
past. It doesn't do any good to get all woke on us. Thanks.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    At the request of our witnesses, we will take a brief 10-
minute break.
    The committee stands in recess for 10 minutes.
    [Recess.]
    Chairwoman Maloney. The committee will come to order.
    The gentleman from Illinois, Representative Quigley, is 
recognized for five minutes.
    [No response.]
    Chairwoman Maloney. Mr. Quigley?
    [No response.]
    Chairwoman Maloney. We are going to hold for a few seconds 
for the witnesses to return. When the witnesses return, we will 
recognize Mr. Quigley.
    [Pause.]
    Chairwoman Maloney. All the witnesses have returned.
    The gentleman from Illinois, Representative Quigley, is 
recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Quigley. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you for those 
who are involved today. I guess at this point, perhaps it is 
helpful to put some of this in perspective and ask a question 
on the overall issue of safety. I serve on the House Select 
Committee on Intelligence, and we are often briefed on climate 
change as a threat to our national security. The Pentagon 
refers to climate change as ``threat multiplier,'' and recent 
reports from the Department of Homeland Security, the 
intelligence community, the National Security Council, and the 
armed services outline the emerging threat of climate change 
and its ability to wreak economic havoc and destabilization in 
regions, initiate and fuel conflicts, and help foment violence.
    The hearing today has helped document a longstanding and 
concerted effort to muddy the scientific waters on the threat 
of climate change and pointed work to prevent any substantive 
action to prevent it, not the least of which was Exxon's 
internal reports confirming human-caused global warming. 
Publicly it took the opposite view in a 2017 study of Exxon's 
communications, concluding that the company systematically 
misled nine scientific audiences about climate change.
    But I think the person who put that all best, Dr. Rod 
Schoonover, he served a decade for the U.S. intelligence 
community as senior analyst and senior scientist in the Bureau 
of Intelligence and Research at the U.S. Department of State, 
as a director of environment and natural resources. He said and 
I quote, ``If climate change poses a risk to national security, 
as the Pentagon and intelligence community again reminded us 
last week, shouldn't we view climate disinformation through the 
same lens as well?'' I think those before us today have to ask 
themselves that, and as this investigation moves forward, we 
need to put it under that prism.
    Let me make a second point, and that is to remind ourselves 
of the risk and danger involved in these operations. I guess I 
would be remiss not talking about a location literally in my 
backyard, the Whiting Refinery, one of the largest refineries 
in the U.S., and its operator, BP. In 1991, the residents of 
East Chicago noticed oil oozing into their basements. A 
subterranean spill of 400,000 barrels of oil was discovered in 
the water tables soon thereafter. In 2012, BP had to pay an $8 
million penalty and spent $400 million on pollution controls 
due to the emissions from the Whiting BP. In 2014, Whiting 
discharged a slug of crude oil into Lake Michigan close to 
where children swim and wildlife live. This occurred nearly 
three weeks after BP announced it would double its processing 
of crude at the Whiting facility.
    Earlier this year, a District Court judge ruled that BP 
repeatedly violated limits on emissions, specifically 
particulate air emission. Between 2015 and 2018, they conducted 
nine emission tests and failed all nine, demonstrating that 
Whiting was spewing soot into the Chicagoland area. Mr. Lawler, 
what are BP's plans for addressing the health effects of its 
presence in communities like where the Whiting Refinery is 
located?
    Mr. Lawler. Thank you for the question, Congressman. So, 
you know, I am aware of the incidents that have occurred at 
Whiting over time, and what I can share with you is that we 
think the safety of the community and the safety of our 
employees is very important, and that includes the safety of 
the water and the air that is in the area. What I can say is 
that we are dedicating resources to correct any deficiencies at 
the Whiting Refinery that we find. As you know, the industry is 
focused on this. We are focused on it, and it is one of our 
largest refineries in the United States. And the commitment 
that we have is to lower emissions at the refinery over time 
and to protect all the individuals that work in and around the 
refinery.
    Mr. Quigley. You know, I think given the limited time we 
have, what makes sense is if you could submit to the committee 
the improvements that you deem necessary, where you are in the 
timeline to make those improvements, and when you expect those 
to be completed, if you would commit to that, please.
    Mr. Lawler. Yes, we will followup with the actions that we 
are taking.
    Mr. Quigley. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cloud, is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Chairwoman. Before my five minutes, I 
ask unanimous consent to submit a few articles for the record.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
    Mr. Cloud. These articles: ``With a Pen Stroke, President 
Joe Biden Cancels the Keystone XL Pipeline Project;'' ``Biden 
Lifts U.S. Sanctions on Major Russian Pipeline;'' ``While 
Western Nations Kill Energy, China Builds Coal Plants by the 
Dozen;'' ``China is Planning to Build 43 New Coal-Fired Power 
Plants;'' ``Russia Projects Oil Output Near Post-Soviet Highs 
in 2022;'' ``Europe Has Become a Hostage to Russia Over Energy, 
Analysts Warn;'' ``Europe Warns Its Gas Prices Surge Will Drive 
Up Food Costs;'' ``Biden Asks OPEC to Up Oil Production While 
Limiting U.S. Energy Production;'' ``Qatar Petroleum Signs a 
15-Year LNG Supply Deal with China;'' ``Qatar Petroleum Boosts 
LNG Production;'' ``Qatar Places a $760 Million Order with 
China for Liquid Gas Ships;'' ``Energy Costs are Stoking 
Inflation. Just Look at U.S. Gas Prices;'' ``Home Heating 
Sticker Shock: The Cost of Natural Gas is Up by 180 Percent;'' 
``Food Prices Poised to Surge with Fertilizer Prices at the 
Highest in Years.'' Thank you.
    Mr. Cloud. It has been said, of course, many times in this 
committee in a number of hearings that we are facing a national 
climate emergency. And I think it is important to put this 
conversation in context because, of course, any discussion on 
any climate solution must be a global one. We know the 
environment doesn't stop at our borders, and we have to be 
thoughtful of that when we are enacting policies and certainly 
discussing potential solutions. I think it is also important 
that we be able to have this conversation without the hysteria 
from the extreme left. Often there is a sad effort to get 
Americans to be fearful in order to get Americans to buy into 
increased government control in their lives in virtually every 
single aspect.
    And I would submit one more article, ``Climate-Related 
Deaths Have Plunged 99.9 Percent Since 1932.''
    Mr. Cloud. The world is not going to end in 10 years. 
People are not dying in record numbers because of climate 
change. Yes, we do want clean air and water, and, yes, we 
should continue to make technological improvements to meet 
those goals. But, Mr. Crabtree, you are not a policy wonk, and 
therefore, not breathing the D.C. air. And so I think you can 
give us kind of just the boots on the ground of an American 
perspective. We have a number of crises right now. We can talk 
about inflation, the price of food, the price of gas. We can 
talk about the supply chain breakdown. We can talk about the 
crime epidemic in our communities as a result of the defund the 
police movement and open borders. We can talk about China's 
nuclear capable hypersonic missile. These things are also 
threats to the Nation. You mentioned you are concerned about 
pricing, being able to meet the mortgage payment next month. I 
imagine, like most Americans, and you can tell me if this is 
true or not, you rate climate change probably somewhere in 
between the new national emergency appearance at school board 
meetings and somewhere with being able to meet your mortgage. 
Is that correct?
    Mr. Crabtree. Well, being able to make my mortgage and take 
care of my family is my No. 1 priority. I do have concerns 
about the climate, but I think it is important that we realize 
we are talking about the negative effect of fossil fuels. But 
we have got to realize the benefits they have provided this 
country over the years. If you look at life expectancy in this 
country and the use of fossil fuels, they go along hand-in-
hand.
    Mr. Cloud. I appreciate that thought. I only have a couple 
more minutes, so I am going to continue if I can. A U.S. 
National Intelligence Council report said this. It was put out 
in 2005. It said, ``In terms of size, speed, and directional 
flow, the transfer of global wealth and economic power is now 
under way. Roughly from West to East, it is without precedent 
in modern history, and the shift arises from two sources. 
First, increases in oil and commodity prices have generated 
windfall profits for Gulf States and Russia. Second, lower 
costs combined with government policies have shifted the locus 
of manufacturing and service industries overseas.'' And so 
basically, it said that there is a massive shift going from the 
American people to nations overseas, and it was because of two 
reasons. One was oil and gas profits going overseas, and two, 
manufacturing going overseas. That report actually went on to 
say that this transfer was inevitable. It cannot be stopped. 
Yet the last Administration, the Trump Administration, showed 
us indeed that those two things could actually be reversed and 
give a great windfall for the American people.
    Now, the world's demand on energy growing. That is a good 
thing. That is people coming out of poverty. That is people 
finding mobility. That is people having fuel to heat their 
homes many times for the first time. Mr. Sommers, generally 
speaking, does the U.S. produce energy cleaner or more 
responsibility than, let's say, here are some of the other 
nations, top producers of energy: Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, 
Iran, Qatar, China. Where does the U.S. rank among those as far 
as producing energy responsibly?
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired, but 
the gentlemen may answer the question.
    Mr. Cloud. Madam Chair, the first two minutes was 
submitting reports, articles for record.
    Chairwoman Maloney. That is still your time. The 
gentleman----
    Mr. Cloud. I believe the rule----
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman may answer your question. 
Let him answer your question.
    Mr. Cloud. Madam Chair, that is not supposed to count 
against my time.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Yes.
    Mr. Comer. Madam Chair, point of order. I didn't think that 
submitting letters for the record counted against your 
questioning time.
    Chairwoman Maloney. It does, but I will grant the gentleman 
a little more time. The gentleman may answer your question.
    Mr. Sommers. Congressman----
    Mr. Cloud. Where does the U.S. rank among some of the 
world's leaders in producing energy responsibly?
    Mr. Sommers. Congressman, thank you for your question. 
Based on the data that we have seen, the United States 
continues to produce these products in a way that is safer, 
better, and more responsibly produced from an environmental 
perspective than any other country on earth.
    Mr. Cloud. Real quick. Has the U.S. reduction in oil and 
gas production and exports led to a surge in other nations, 
say, in the Middle East for Asia adopting green technologies?
    Mr. Sommers. Congressman, as an organization, we, of 
course, are focused on continuing to produce in an 
environmentally safe way these products that are demanded by 
world consumers.
    Mr. Cloud. Right. But I think what we see in some of the 
articles that I mentioned before, what we see is as we reduce 
production, actually the world finds other sources that are 
less clean than United States production to meet the demand. I 
would suggest that the greater the demand that U.S. production 
is on the world market, the better it is for our green 
objectives. One more question, and, Ms. Clark, if you could 
answer this. Any discussion about----
    Chairwoman Maloney. Very quickly.
    Mr. Cloud. In any discussion about green energy solutions, 
it is very important that we recognize that they also require 
natural resources, and that is rare earth minerals. Could you 
speak to how reliant is the U.S. on other nations for rare 
earth minerals, and what nation controls most of the rare earth 
minerals? I think it is 80 to 90 percent.
    Ms. Clark. Thank you, Congressman. I know I don't have much 
time, but I believe that China controls too much of the supply 
of these critical minerals, and it is why we have to balance 
national security and economic security while we are combatting 
climate change together.
    Mr. Cloud. And the U.S. is what percent reliant on rare 
earth minerals for other nations?
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired. You 
may ask your question. She may answer it, but you are three 
minutes over right now.
    Mr. Cloud. It is 100 percent. Thank you. Thank you, Madam 
Chair.
    Chairwoman Maloney. OK. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. 
Sarbanes, is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Sarbanes. Thanks very much, Madam Chair. The fossil 
fuel executives that are appearing before us today claim that 
their companies support reaching the goals of the Paris 
Agreement, a watershed international environmental treaty, as 
we know. But the committee looked into the lobbying disclosures 
filed by your companies and found that your rhetoric of support 
for the Paris Agreement doesn't match reality when it comes to 
your lobbying. We know what it looks like when your industry 
really cares about a Federal initiative and your companies want 
to see it succeed.
    So let me start with you, Mr. Wirth. Your company claims 
that the Paris Agreement is among your highest priorities. The 
first sentence of Chevron's climate policy page says, ``Chevron 
supports the Paris Agreement.'' I notice that you also touted 
Chevron's support for the Paris Agreement in your written 
testimony to this committee. Since the start of negotiations on 
the Paris Agreement in 2015, Chevron has reported 986 total 
instances of Federal lobbying. Mr. Wirth, do you know how many 
times Chevron reported lobbying on the Paris Agreement?
    Mr. Wirth. Congressman, that is information that I don't 
have in front of me, but it is----
    Mr. Sarbanes. OK. Well, let me tell you what it is. Not 
once, not a single time, not one of those 986 instances of 
lobbying mentions the Paris Agreement. Now I want to compare 
that to an issue that we know your company really cares about: 
corporate tax breaks. Mr. Wirth, do you know how many lobbying 
reports your company filed that included lobbying on tax 
issues?
    Mr. Wirth. Congressman, I don't have that information in 
front of me.
    Mr. Sarbanes. A hundred and forty-four. That is the answer. 
You didn't lobby once on the 28 bills and resolutions 
introduced on the Paris Agreement. When former President Trump 
was debating withdrawing from the agreement in 2017, you never 
lobbied the White House. Chevron has spent more than $54 
million on lobbying on a lot of other things since 2015, so 
clearly when your company cares about an issue, you lobby on it 
and we can see that in the reports.
    Let me move on to Mr. Lawler. BP's 2020 shareholder report 
pledged to, and I quote, ``advocate for fundamental and rapid 
progress toward the Paris climate goals.'' Since 2015, the 
company has reported 488 total instances of legislative 
lobbying. Mr. Lawler, how many of those reports mentioned BP 
lobbying on the Paris Agreement?
    Mr. Lawler. I don't have that specific number, but what I--
--
    Mr. Sarbanes. The answer is one. That amounts to 0.2 
percent of your Federal lobbying during that time. By 
comparison, you lobbied 21 times on the 2017 tax cut bill. And 
I am running out of time, so I just want to list for the record 
some information about the other organizations represented here 
today. Since 2015, API has filed 153 lobbying reports aimed at 
cutting taxes for oil and gas companies, but just one lobbying 
report on the Paris Agreement. Exxon has spent $60 million on 
lobbying since 2015. These are astronomical sums by the way, 
just as an aside. Of the 1,543 instances of legislative 
lobbying that Exxon reported, only one mentioned the Paris 
Agreement, but Exxon lobbied on tax legislation 344 times. So 
once on the Paris Agreement which you claim is a priority and 
something you are focused on as a company, 344 times on tax 
legislation. And Shell, responsible for 470 instances of 
legislative lobbying, addressed the Paris Agreement only 5 
times. I mean, that is better than the rest of the crowd, but 
that is not so great in itself, but on the tax cut bill, Shell 
lobbied 31 times.
    So there is no strong public record reflected here in terms 
of support for the Paris Agreement, regardless of the claims 
you make and regardless of the rhetoric that we hear day in and 
day out. We know that we follow the money to determine what 
your priorities are, and they are headed in a different 
direction. It is time we start judging these companies, your 
companies by your actions, not by the rhetoric.
    And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Gibbs, you are now recognized 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. First of all, I think it has been 
shameful how the other side wants to demonize this oil and gas 
industry. I am very proud of our oil and gas industry. They are 
innovators. They adopt new technologies. They provide a higher 
standard of living and lots of jobs and economic activity 
throughout our country.
    I want to go back a little bit in history just for a quick 
review, you know, how this all started. Go back to the late 
1800's, the Industrial Revolution, and we had Andrew Carnegie, 
steel, we had John D. Rockefeller, kerosene and the refinery. 
We had J.P. Morgan, Thomas Edison, electricity. And they began 
the Industrial Revolution, and their innovation and their 
entrepreneurship put us on a path to become a global power in 
this world that has given us the ability to do lots of good 
things. We stopped tyranny in the 1940's. We have helped 
countries around the world improve their standard of living and 
quality of life. And just recently we brought the world COVID 
vaccines. So this is an exceptional country, and part of it 
that has had a big play in that is our great companies.
    And I would just revert back to John D. Rockefeller. He 
started with kerosene, and one of the byproducts that was 
interesting is gasoline and the invention of the internal 
combustion engine. They figured out what they could do with 
Henry Ford and all that took off, but then they had to break up 
those monopolies, and that probably was a good thing. And the 
companies that are represented here today, Madam Chair, are a 
spinoff of the Standard Oil Company, which began in my great 
state of Ohio. So I am proud of that, and I am proud of all the 
stuff that they have done to help us and what they are going to 
do in this century to help us transition, environmentally 
friendly, but supply affordable energy available to our 
consumers and provide the power to move our country forward 
into new technologies, maybe hydrogen renewables or 
technologies we don't even know about yet.
    I think it is amazing the chair of the subcommittee trying 
to hold these CEOs to account to essentially make a pledge to 
lower production, and I am glad to see at least one of them, 
Mr. Woods from ExxonMobil, said we are going to increase 
production because the demand is out there. We have a President 
of the United States out there asking OPEC to increase 
production, the biggest hypocrisy probably in this century, but 
he did say they are going to work to lower emissions. And I am 
just disappointed that the chair failed to recognize that and 
tried to demonize them on that.
    A couple other things here. I always hear, and it came up 
earlier in the hearing today, about how the oil and gas 
industry get tax subsidies. It is just not fair. I looked into 
this a little bit ago, and I can't really find it. The answer 
was they get anything that all other businesses get, and I will 
give you an example. I know some of the ANI oil and gas people 
are out there saying that if you go out and drill a hole, you 
know, drill a well, those legitimate expenses for the drilling 
costs and to pay the employees shouldn't be taxed deductible. 
They call that a subsidy. I don't think that is any different 
than when I go out in business and do things and I have 
business expenses, you expense that. And I believe that is the 
case and that there are no real subsidies that go to the oil 
and gas industry. At least nobody's told me a real legitimate 
one.
    Mr. Sommers, like I just said, the oil and gas industry, 
you know, we have gone from $60 oil just last year to $85 oil, 
and you see the price of gas. What is the status right now with 
our oil rigs, our exploration in this country? What has 
happened in the last 10 months? Mr. Sommers.
    Mr. Sommers. Congressman, thank you very much for your 
question. And as you know, the state of Ohio, our home state, 
has a very robust oil and natural gas industry and an 
incredible history of development. And, in fact, it is because 
of that development in our state that we have got to the point 
where we are producing natural gas that we can share with the 
rest of the world to meet environmental challenges, not just 
here at home, but in the rest of the world. U.S. petroleum 
demand in the United States reached a record high in the month 
of September. Unfortunately, supply has not been able to keep 
pace. Domestic oil production in September was down by 1.9 
million barrels a day from its level for the same month of the 
pre-pandemic year of 2019.
    Mr. Cloud. OK. I am almost out of time. Is that because 
there has been more pressure put on and our innovators aren't 
going out and doing what they were doing a year ago because of 
the fear of more burdensome regulations, the canceling of 
Federal permits on lands and waters?
    Mr. Sommers. Congressman, thank you for your question. 
There are a number of different reasons for that, including 
the, you know, worker shortage that is occurring in the United 
States, but, of course, Federal regulations and announcements 
have played a significant role as well. When the first 
announcement out of the Administration was canceling the 
Keystone XL pipeline and the second announcement was canceling 
development on Federal lands, and leases on those Federal 
lands, and permitting on those Federal lands, I do think it is 
sent chilling effect across the industry about where this 
Administration was headed in terms of the development of 
resources here in the United States.
    Mr. Cloud. So I am out of time, but I guess just to close, 
what the future looks like--higher prices, demands increasing 
and the supply is not--so we are going to be more dependent on 
OPEC, and Russia, and everybody else. And I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back. The 
gentlelady from Michigan, Ms. Tlaib, is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Mr. Woods, did 
Exxon help fund One Alaska? ``Yes'' or ``no.''
    Mr. Woods. I am not familiar with that.
    Ms. Tlaib. Well, One Alaska was a front group created 
specifically to oppose Alaska's ballot initiative that would 
require oil companies to pay their fair share. It actually 
received nearly $21 million in contributions. Ninety-four 
percent of One Alaska's contributions came from five oil and 
gas companies, including Exxon and BP.
    So I would like to submit for the record, Madam Chair, an 
article, ``Oil Companies Spend Big to Try to Defeat Alaska's 
Tax Proposal.''
    Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
    Ms. Tlaib. Same thing in Colorado in 2018 where a measure--
this is a resident lead ballot measure--to ban oil and gas 
extraction within a half a mile of homes, schools, and 
waterways on the ballot. That front group was called Colorado 
Rising and, again, resident led. That one, Mr. Wirth--Mike 
Wirth--I am not even going to bother to ask if you are familiar 
with it because I know the answer. Many of you, all of you, 
helped fund some of these. I guess Chevron specifically funded 
$33 million behind its subsidiary, Noble Energy. Contributed to 
that front group. Mr. Sommers, are you familiar with Energy 
Citizens?
    Mr. Sommers. I am familiar with Energy Citizens, 
Congresswoman.
    Ms. Tlaib. I am glad you are. It is a front group for 
American Petroleum Institute, which uses it to flood Facebook 
with hundreds of ads opposing climate provisions in the Build 
Back Better Act. There you all spent about, what, nearly half a 
million dollars in misleading ads since August. Of course when 
you look at these ads, you all, the public, when you look at 
these ads, they don't say the name ``Exxon,'' ``BP,'' 
``Chevron'' anywhere. You all hide and you deceive the public 
so oil and gas companies can go on claiming that they are pro-
environment while opposing sensible pro-environment measures in 
secret. Lies plain and simple.
    Madam Chair, I would like to submit for the record as well 
a Michigan utility's front group's misleading campaign ahead of 
a vote on energy legislation.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
    Ms. Tlaib. There DTE Energy and Consumers Energy used front 
groups called Alliance for Michigan Power and Citizens for 
Energizing Michigan's Economy, respectively, to target my 
residents and their amazing work. Amazing work. They are the 
ones fundraising for this, Madam Chair, to support increased 
rooftop solar energy. That is how they wanted to cut the energy 
costs so they can make a living, so they can provide a quality 
life for their families by reducing their reliance on corporate 
polluters. Mike Wirth, when are you going to cut the check?
    Mr. Wirth. Congresswoman, I am not sure I understand the 
context of your question, but I would like to correct the----
    Ms. Tlaib. That is OK.
    Mr. Wirth. Excuse me. I would like to correct something 
that you----
    Ms. Tlaib. Sure.
    Mr. Wirth. You have been provided with some inaccurate 
information.
    Ms. Tlaib. Mm-hmm.
    Mr. Wirth. Noble Energy was not a subsidiary of Chevron in 
2018----
    Ms. Tlaib. OK. You can submit it for the record, sir.
    Mr. Wirth. It was----
    Ms. Tlaib. You can submit it to the committee.
    Ms. Tlaib. Chevron has about 70 serious cases of 
environmental and community abuses in 31 countries worldwide, 
owing over $50 billion in judgments and settlements. Checks. 
Literally settlement debts that you all have. So, Mike, when 
are you going to cut the check?
    Mr. Wirth. Congresswoman, I am not familiar with the number 
you cite.
    Ms. Tlaib. When are you going to cut the $50 billion check 
that you owe? It went through the courts. You owe $50 billion 
to communities in 31 countries.
    Mr. Wirth. Congresswoman, I would be happy to take a look 
at the source for your information on this----
    Ms. Tlaib. All right.
    Mr. Wirth [continuing]. And get back to you on it because I 
have no understanding of what you are----
    Ms. Tlaib. I have a message for you as Chevron CEO. I mean, 
you made, what, $29 million last year in poisoning the planet? 
Mr. Wirth, you can't arrest us all. You can't arrest the truth. 
Do you understand what I am trying to say to you?
    Mr. Wirth. Congresswoman, I am not exactly following.
    Ms. Tlaib. So you are targeting actions against human 
rights lawyer Gottsinger. I mean, what you did there, your 
company, maybe through subsidiaries, I don't know. I just want 
to remind you, there are more of us than there are of you. You 
can poison the planet to make money, but we are going to defend 
the planet so we can live, and we will win. So, you know, I 
need Chevron to cut the check. You owe $50 billion to 
indigenous communities and people that you harmed for profit.
    This is not about vilifying these companies. This is about 
accountability. You all know we are all paying the cost, from 
our public health to our environment, the actions that you 
take, and you are hiding behind subsidiaries, and it is wrong. 
These are residents putting ballot initiatives on their local 
ballot to make a difference to save our planet. Get out of the 
way so they can do the work for the people in the community 
they live in.
    Thank you, and I yield.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins, is recognized 
five minutes.
    Mr. Comer. Point of order. Point of order. Point of order.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Point of order. What is your point of 
order?
    Mr. Comer. I just wanted to state a point of fact with what 
Representative Tlaib said about Colorado, Proposition 112. 
Opposition to that measure was deep, which included John 
Hickenlooper, the senator, and as well as our former colleague, 
Governor Jared Polis.
    Ms. Tlaib. Madam Chair, point of order.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The point is not a valid----
    Ms. Tlaib. That is not a point of order.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Excuse me.
    Mr. Comer [continuing]. Submit to the record.
    Chairwoman Maloney. It is not a valid point of order. OK.
    Now the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins, is now 
recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Higgins. My, my, my. Good Lord, help us to be protected 
from this threat from within. American patriots are so done 
with career politicians and Democrat Party Socialist insanity. 
We are nauseated by the continuous attacks on working Americans 
and American industry. This entire debacle of a hearing today 
has been reflective of the exact reasons why my colleagues 
across the aisle will lose their majority status very soon.
    We have a smashed economy. We have witnessed a disgraceful 
retreat from Taliban terrorists overseas, abandoning Americans. 
We have a disintegrated southern border. We have unbelievable 
inflation. We have medical oppression. We have parents, 
American parents, being threatened by our own DOJ for having 
the audacity to exercise their First Amendment rights to 
assemble and redress grievance. We have companies brought 
before us today, American men and women, for a public beating 
by the Democrats on this committee. They have done incredible 
work to actually lower emissions. These companies have worked 
with scientists and engineers, not politicians, to reduce 
methane by 70 percent between 2011 and 2019. They have used 
innovation to clean up their industry on their own. Their 
facilities and plants are incredibly clean and safe.
    It is abhorrent that my colleagues across the aisle have 
called a so-called hearing today to demonize American industry 
whose products make modern life possible. Petroleum products 
are in everything: the clothes on our back, the wiring in our 
computers, our computers, our cellphones, all of the equipment 
used by our military, all medical supplies and equipment, 
paint, curtains, fabrics, and appliances in our homes, fishing 
rods, lures, tennis shoes by sportsman, everything, all sports 
products. It is insane what my colleagues across the aisle are 
putting these good American men and women through and attacking 
American workers as our country dissolves around us. You push 
patriots too far. You have gone a bridge too far. We won't take 
it anymore.
    Mr. Woods, Ms. Watkins, Mr. Wirth, and Mr. Lawler, I am 
about to ask you about a pledge. Our chairwoman asked you for a 
pledge. I think it was an absurd request, but I am going to ask 
you about a pledge. Mr. Woods, do you pledge today to endeavor 
to continue leading the world in emissions reductions and 
provide an abundant affordable energy through innovations? I 
will say it again so you can think about it. Do you pledge 
today to endeavor to continue leading the world in emissions 
reductions and provide an abundant, affordable energy through 
innovations?
    Mr. Woods. We try to do that today, and we will continue to 
try to do that going into----
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Woods. Ms. Watkins, same 
question. Do you pledge today for Shell to endeavor to continue 
leading the world in emissions reductions and providing 
abundant affordable energy through innovations?
    Ms. Watkins. Congressman, yes, and I would add clean energy 
to that.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Wirth, for Chevron, do 
you pledge today to continue to endeavor leading the world old 
in emissions reductions through providing abundant affordable 
energy and with innovation?
    Mr. Wirth. Yes, I do.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, sir. Mr. Lawler, for BP America, do 
you pledge today to endeavor to continue leading the world in 
emissions reductions and providing abundant, affordable energy 
for the world through innovations?
    Mr. Lawler. Thank you, Congressman. We will continue and I 
pledge to lower emissions over time. We are trying to help the 
world reach net zero, and we will continue to provide the 
energy that the world needs, and increasingly green. And we 
have a number of projects in motion today that will support 
those objectives.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, good sir, for your answer. Madam 
Chair, I happily yield the balance of my time so that we can 
get through this horrendous display, a partisan attack upon 
American workers and American industry. I yield.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentlelady from California, Ms. Porter--Ms. Katie 
Porter--is recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Porter. Thank you, Madam Chair. We have heard a lot 
about future plans for investment in renewable energy today. 
Ms. Watkins, Shell's 2020 annual report called for between $19 
and $22 billion in near-term spending. I am representing that 
with this container of M&Ms. Each M&M represents about $50 
million in spending. Ms. Watkins, how much has Shell said it 
will spend in the near-term on oil, gas, and chemical 
operations?
    Ms. Watkins. I think you just said we are going to be 
spending between $18 and $20 billion this year.
    Ms. Porter. That is near term on total spending. How much 
on oil, gas, and chemical operations?
    Ms. Watkins. We are going to be spending----
    Ms. Porter. Well, according to your annual report, you said 
you are going to spend $16 to $17 billion for oil, gas, and 
chemical, with another $3 billion for marketing. How much is 
Shell going to spend on renewable energy?
    Ms. Watkins. This year we will be spending between $2 and 
$3 billion.
    Ms. Porter. Two and $3 billion on renewables and energy 
solutions. In your testimony, you said, ``Meeting the demand 
for reliable energy while simultaneously addressing climate 
change is a huge undertaking and one of the defining challenges 
of our time.'' Shell has made these promises before. Shell 
pledged to spend $6 billion between 2017 and 2020 on renewable 
energy. How much of that did Shell actually spend? The answer 
is about half. Ms. Watkins, does this look like a huge 
undertaking to you?
    Ms. Watkins. Congresswoman, what I can tell you is that 
there needs to be both a demand and a supply of clean energy, 
which is why we are working very closely with our customers so 
that that demand increases over time, and we are ready to 
supply----
    Ms. Porter. Ms. Watkins, to me, this does not like an 
adequate response to one of the defining challenges of our 
time. This is greenwashing. Shell is trying to fool people into 
thinking that it is addressing the climate crisis when what it 
is actually doing is to continue to put money into fossil 
fuels. Mr. Sommers, do you recognize the following statement: 
``Banning Federal leasing and development on Federal lands and 
waters would derail decades of U.S. energy progress?''
    Mr. Sommers. I do, Congresswoman.
    Ms. Porter. That is your statement. How many of the 
Department of Interior's approved and ready-to-drill permits 
are currently unused?
    Mr. Sommers. Congresswoman, it takes a long time to develop 
these leases that oil and gas companies----
    Ms. Porter. I appreciate that, Mr. Sommers. I am just 
asking how many permits are unused.
    Mr. Sommers. Congresswoman, I think there is a fundamental 
misunderstanding as to how these acres----
    Ms. Porter. Reclaiming my time. Mr. Sommers, there are 
7,700 permits unused. How many acres of public land are already 
leased by fossil fuel companies and not even used yet just 
available for drilling whenever you decide?
    Mr. Sommers. Congresswoman, again, I think you have a 
fundamental misunderstanding as to how this process works and 
the time and resources it takes----
    Ms. Porter. Reclaiming my time. Reclaiming my time. The 
answer is 13.9 million acres. To visualize how much land that 
is, if each grain of rice were 1 acre, that would be 479 pounds 
of rice. The American Petroleum Institute even opposed pausing 
more leasing on our lands. They even sued to stop it because 
apparently this acreage wasn't enough. Mr. Wirth, you serve on 
the American Petroleum Institute's Executive Committee. Do you 
support a pause a new oil and gas leases on Federal land?
    Mr. Wirth. Congresswoman, access to resource in this 
country is essential to ensure the energy security of our 
country and development----
    Ms. Porter. Reclaiming my time. Mr. Lawler, do you support 
a pause on new oil and gas leases?
    Mr. Lawler [continuing]. The Administration, and it is our 
hope that the pause ends soon. We think it is important to go 
forward.
    Ms. Porter. Reclaiming my time. Thank you for your answer. 
The answer there was ``no.'' Mr. Woods, do you support a pause 
on new Federal and gas leases?
    Mr. Woods. No.
    Ms. Porter. Ms. Watkins, do you support a pause on new 
Federal and gas leases?
    Ms. Watkins. No, I do not because I think it is important--
--
    Ms. Porter. You already have 13.9 million acres. This is 
equivalent to Maryland and New Jersey combined. How much more 
do you need? How much more acreage? You have two of our 50 
states at a price that makes the Louisiana Purchase look like a 
rip off, and you are not even using it. What more do you need? 
Iowa? Colorado? Virginia? Our public land belongs to the 
American people, not to Big Oil. When you lobby and you sue so 
that you can take more of our public land, you are saying too 
much is never enough. The American people are tired of this 
charade.
    I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sessions, is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Sessions. Madam Chairman, thank you very much. And I 
apologize to our witnesses that were called and asked to take 
part in this today. As chairman of the Rules Committee for six 
years, I never witnessed nor would have allowed this kind of 
intimidation that is taking place on people who we invited to 
come and provide open answers. On top of that, they raise their 
hand to tell the truth, and they were repeatedly stopped rather 
than allowing them to offer their explanations of things they 
do. I apologize to our witnesses and want to thank them as 
energy company executives to make sure that America has a sound 
supply of energy that is available and reliable to where we can 
avoid the things that happened under President Jimmy Carter, 
where that same attack took place and we had long lines of 
people in the middle of the winter attempting to get what they 
needed. Each of you represent an industry that helps to provide 
a solid, cost-effective supply. Republicans have had issues 
with energy, and that is why just a few years ago we opened up 
the American market. We opened up the American market to the 
world, and I believe that this helped not just consumers, but I 
believe it helped other people in the world.
    Mr. Sommers, have you ever heard of a term called LIHEAP?
    Mr. Sommers. Yes, sir. I have heard of LIHEAP.
    Mr. Sessions. Do you know what LIHEAP is and what it is 
used for as a Federal program?
    Mr. Sommers. I do. LIHEAP is a well-established program 
that helps low-income individuals afford heat in their homes 
during the winter.
    Mr. Sessions. And it is primarily used in the Northeast.
    Mr. Sommers. That is correct.
    Mr. Sessions. Can you tell me what the product is that is 
dumped in to ensure this energy would be available in the 
Northeast?
    Mr. Sommers. Well, Congressman, as you know, most of the, 
you know, power in this country, particularly for heat and air 
conditioning, you know, or 40 percent of it now, comes from 
natural gas.
    Mr. Sessions. And LIHEAP, is that natural gas in the 
Northeast?
    Mr. Sommers. Congressman, in the Northeast, in all home 
heating, a lot of it is from actually oil.
    Mr. Sessions. Diesel, is that correct, or what kind of home 
heating fuel is it?
    Mr. Sommers. It is home heating oil.
    Mr. Sessions. Home heating oil. So what has the rest of the 
country done that would be of benefit and responsibility for 
heating their homes?
    Mr. Sommers. Well, Congressman, as an industry, we have 
worked hard to develop these resources here at home so that we 
don't have to get them from volatile regimes overseas. And that 
includes, of course, the home heating oil that is used to heat 
homes in the Northeast.
    Mr. Sessions. Primarily what I am looking for--you are the 
one giving the answer--is natural gas is an abundant supply in 
the United States. Is that correct?
    Mr. Sommers. That is correct. In fact, it is 40 percent of 
the heat and air conditioning and power that Americans get in 
their homes comes from natural gas. And there has been a 
significant fuel switch that has occurred over the course of 
the last many years as a consequence of the natural gas and oil 
revolution here in the United States where we have been able to 
produce more here in the United States, and we have not had to 
import those products from overseas.
    Mr. Sessions. Using the term ``clean energy,'' how clean is 
natural gas compared to home heating fuel?
    Mr. Sommers. Natural gas is, well, 50 percent more clean 
than what it has replaced--coal--and that has been, you know, a 
real boon to the American environment and has allowed us to cut 
emissions over time to generational lows.
    Mr. Sessions. Mr. Sommers, have you ever heard of this 
committee or another committee holding a hearing about LIHEAP 
and how dirty that is as compared to clean natural gas?
    Mr. Sommers. I am not familiar with such a hearing, sir.
    Mr. Sessions. You would think that that would be part of 
the agenda is to make their own territory cleaner in the 
winter. Madam Chairman, I have used my time. I think I made my 
point. I would like to yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from California, Mr. DeSaulnier, is 
recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks for having 
this hearing. My comments I put in the context of it has been 
my privilege for 32 years to serve in public office in a region 
in Northern California that is home to five oil refineries, a 
significant part of our economy, significant part of our 
revenue stream for state and local government, for our school 
districts. Mr. Wirth, I don't know if you are a constituent, 
but I know some of your predecessors have been. Your 
headquarters is in the county I represent. I put that in 
context.
    And I have also served in the Bay Area Air Quality 
Management District and was appointed by Pete Wilson, a 
Republican, to the California Air Resources Board, and served 
under three Governors, two Republicans and one Democrat. So I 
remind folks that it was a California Republican who signed the 
Clean Air Act, Richard Nixon. Ronald Reagan amended it, another 
Republican, and George Deukmejian, a conservative Republican 
Governor of California, started the ZEV Program, Zero Emission 
Vehicles Program, which I have been intimately involved with 
auto manufacturers, and also, to a degree, under other 
regulations with the heavy-duty manufacturers.
    I have been to funerals of constituents of mine who have 
died while working in these refineries. I don't know if any of 
you have ever been on one of those. Five of them died. One of 
them died because the company--not yours, but some company that 
competes with you--was appealing a citation from Cal/OSHA to 
replace walkie-talkies that cost less than $1,000. Michael 
Glanzman, who was trying to use that to tell the folks back in 
the command unit that they should shut down the hydrocracker, 
they couldn't hear him in time, so he was eviscerated. So that 
is a long way of saying I have got a long history in this 
field. You provide value, but it is time to change. And we 
don't have time, from an economic standpoint or environmental 
standpoint, to haggle over this, but we have got to remember 
history and we have got to rebuild trust.
    Mr. Sommers, the viewpoint that all of this innovation and 
our reductions have happened because of private industry is 
just misleading at best. Mr. Jordan's comments. Mr. Grothman's 
comments. Our regulations, the California waiver, has propelled 
this innovation environmentally and from a worker safety 
standpoint, and it has been my pleasure in very difficult 
negotiations to be able to work with the private sector to get 
those. So I wish we could really focus on what is in front of 
us, an energy industry that is important to us, but whose time 
is passing. Mr. Grothman's comments and the idea that we are 
going back to coal in China, I would just remind folks that 
China is adding 100,000 charging stations and hydrogen fuel 
stations a month, and it is going up exponentially. The future 
is not in fossil fuels and in climate carbon intensive 
industries. It is in renewables and alternatives. And even if 
we didn't have the existential threat to the climate, that 
would be an economic reality. It is more efficient.
    Mr. Woods, I would like to read a quote, and I would like 
to ask unanimous to consent to enter these into the record, a 
series of articles from the L.A. Times, Climate Action News, 
and correspondence that myself, and Congressman Lieu, and Mr. 
Welch have all been part of with ExxonMobil.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you. We will provide that 
information.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. So the quote from the L.A. Times article 
dated October 23, 2015, the headline is, ``How Exxon Went From 
Leader to Skeptic on Climate Change Research.'' ``Throughout 
much of the 1980's, Exxon earned a public reputation as a 
pioneer in climate change research. It sponsored workshops, 
funded academic research, and conducted its own high-tech 
experiments exploring the science behind global warming, but by 
1990, the company in public took a different posture,'' Mr. 
Woods. ``While still funding select research, it poured 
millions into a campaign that questioned climate change over 
the next 15 years. It took out prominent ads in The Washington 
Post, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, contending 
that climate change science was murky and uncertain, and then 
argued regulations aimed at curbing global warming were ill-
considered and premature. How did one of the world's largest 
oil companies, a leader in climate research, become one of its 
biggest skeptics?'' One of your employees, the manager of 
Science and Technology Department, actually told the board in 
1989 of the consequences of denial.
    Mr. Woods, in 2015, Mr. Welch, Mr. Lieu, and I met in Mr. 
Lieu's office with your representative, and we asked for 
timeline and a response from you on these allegations. It is 
now 2021. We have asked repeatedly for this information from 
you to hear your side of the story while the litigation has 
gone on. We haven't gotten a response. Would you commit to me 
personally today to follow through and give us what your 
representative promised us six years ago?
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired, but 
the gentleman may answer the question.
    Mr. Woods. Congressman, I am not aware of the request that 
you reference, but we will followup with you. I will commit to 
followup with you.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Well, it is real common that you are 
unaware of it. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Keller, is recognized 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Keller. Thank you to the many witnesses for being here 
today. The U.S. Energy Information Administration published the 
Winter Fuels Outlook for the upcoming months, and their 
forecast is grim. Half of Americans use natural gas to heat 
their homes, and they are projected to pay about 30 percent 
higher energy prices this winter compared to last. Depending on 
weather and demand, Americans could be paying almost, some 
estimates, 55 to 60 percent more to heat their homes and 
businesses than they were last year. Those that will be most 
affected by these outrageous energy prices will be low-income 
wage earners and those on fixed incomes, like our senior 
citizens.
    I would ask unanimous consent to include the report into 
the record.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
    Mr. Keller. Mr. Crabtree, as a welder, what was your 
experience when the Keystone pipeline was shut down, and do you 
know how many of your fellow employees, workers lost their 
jobs?
    Mr. Crabtree. Well, at the time when the pipeline was shut 
down, it was in the early stages the construction, so it wasn't 
a lot. It is the fact that would have been 11,000 union members 
working had that project been completed. But I know since the 
new Administration has taken, about 80 percent of our members 
were without work during peak construction season this year.
    Mr. Keller. Well, how does that make you feel that the 
President of United States said that you can't build a pipeline 
here in America but allows the Russians to operate their Nord 
Stream 2 pipeline?
    Mr. Crabtree. Well, it was definitely frustrating to say 
the least. That is about all I can say about that.
    Mr. Keller. Yes, I can't imagine. And, you know, you have 
worked on pipelines, you know, welding and so forth. You know, 
looking at the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, do you believe that 
those foreign pipelines like that are better protecting our 
environment or better constructed than ones that we would build 
here in America, like the Keystone XL?
    Mr. Crabtree. Absolutely not. You know, I am a member of a 
union, and we take the utmost pride in the construction and the 
quality of work we put out. There are plenty of projects here 
in the United States that could have been providing that same 
natural gas and putting Americans to work, but instead we are 
letting Russia take that.
    Mr. Keller. And I would think that you and our fellow 
Americans with the skill that you have can construct a much 
safer and a much better pipeline anybody else in the world.
    Mr. Crabtree. That is that is the absolute truth. Like I 
said, we take a lot of pride in the work we do.
    Mr. Keller. Absolutely. There is no question that vital 
conservation efforts should be an American priority. It should 
also not be controversial to say that an all-of-the-above 
domestic energy approach is good for our country. We cannot 
turn a blind eye to the realities of energy demand and 
inability of renewables alone to heat our homes or fuel our 
vehicles and power our lives. The United States is already 
producing energy more cleanly and more efficiently than nations 
like Russia or China. Would any of the witnesses like to speak 
on the ways in which American-made energy is already innovating 
without far-fetched government mandates?
    Mr. Wirth. Congressman, I will speak to that. You know, one 
of the greatest breakthroughs in technology in the last two 
decades in energy has been the ability to marry up two 
technologies which the industry had already used, which is 
directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing, which has 
allowed this country to become the leader in oil and gas 
production in the world once again after decades of decline. 
And so that is what has enabled the reductions in emissions 
that have been cited earlier today, greater than a dozen 
countries combined around the world. It is what has reduced 
criteria pollutants in our economy and in our cities, and it is 
just one of many examples of the innovation that goes on by the 
incredibly talented women and men in this industry across all 
the companies represented here today, and many, many others who 
are also part of the great American treasure which is our 
energy economy.
    Mr. Keller. Thank you. I appreciate that. The other thing I 
would like to say is, you know, looking at what are great 
workers do here in America and so on, China has pledged to 
achieve net zero emissions by 2060. I mean, is there anybody 
here that really believes that is a serious proposal? I mean, 
they are building more coal-fired plants now as we speak, you 
know. They are increasing energy in coal and so on. I would 
really think that if we think that is a serious proposal, we 
take a second look at it.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentlelady from New York, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, is 
recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. And, you 
know, it is not lost on me that we are having a hearing today 
surrounding fossil fuel misinformation and disinformation 
campaigns on the same day that we are scheduled to vote on 
legislation that has been deeply influenced by the lobbying 
efforts of the fossil fuel industry. It is a wonderful 
opportunity for us to be speaking with the CEOs of BP, Chevron, 
Exxon, Shell, and the American Petroleum Institute.
    Speaking of which, Mr. Sommers, as the President of the 
American Petroleum Institute, part of your job is to help 
lobby, and advocate, and champion the fossil fuel industry, and 
that includes, particularly, legislation before the U.S. 
Congress. You told CNN on television, ``We are leaving 
everything on the field here in terms of our opposition to 
reconciliation. We are using every tool at our disposal to work 
against these energy proposals.'' And, frankly, Mr. Sommers, I 
appreciate your candor because most lobbying organization heads 
aren't as forthright and transparent about their efforts to 
manipulate U.S. legislation. So what did that all-out approach 
look like? Am I correct, Mr. Sommers, that the oil and gas 
industry overall, including the companies that you represent 
and members you represent today, have spent about $55.6 million 
in lobbying within the last 10 months, this year alone? That 
figure sounds right to you, correct?
    Mr. Sommers. Congresswoman, thank you for your question, 
but let me clarify something, first of all, about who the 
American Petroleum Institute is. Our mission, first of all, is 
that we are a standard setting organization for the global oil 
and gas industry. We maintain over 700 standards in the areas 
of health, environment, and safety. In addition to that, we 
advocate for the oil and gas industry here----
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Mr. Sommers, is that figure $55.6 
million in lobbying funds correct or not? I have limited time.
    Mr. Sommers. Congresswoman, I don't have those numbers at 
my disposal.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Well, according to our disclosures, that 
seems to be the figure, but I will move on. I would like to 
turn my attention to, and I apologize. We just simply don't 
have much time allocated here. Mr. Woods, as the CEO of 
ExxonMobil, are you familiar with an individual by the name of 
Keith McCoy?
    Mr. Woods. I am.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. He was one of your top lobbyists, 
correct?
    Mr. Woods. He was a senior advisor in our Washington 
office.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. I see. Now, earlier this year, McCoy was 
recorded in a private session as saying, ``I liken lobbying to 
fishing. You have to bait. You throw that bait out there just 
to kind of reel Members of Congress in because they are a 
captive audience. They know that they need you and I need 
them.'' And he also alluded to having weekly calls with certain 
Members of Congress as debates around reconciliation were being 
formed. Are you aware of these calls?
    Mr. Woods. I am not aware of the calls.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. You are not aware of the calls. Have you 
participated in any calls with Members of Congress throughout 
this process of reconciliation and infrastructure?
    Mr. Woods. I have.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. You have. Are political donations ever 
discussed during your calls with Members of Congress?
    Mr. Woods. No, they are not.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. They are not. Does the value of your 
compensation increase as a result of increased production from 
Exxon's refineries?
    Mr. Woods. No, volumes from our refineries are not part of 
my compensation.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Is your compensation tied to Exxon stock 
price?
    Mr. Woods. Yes, it is.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. It is, and so I would assume with 
increased value in Exxon stock price and oil production, that 
would have a boost in the value of your compensation, correct?
    Mr. Woods. My compensation is based on a number of metrics 
and parameters, from environmental safety and value creation to 
technology development. It is a portfolio of responsibilities 
that the compensation committee judges me on.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you very much. You know, I think 
one thing that often gets lost in these conversations is that 
some of us have to actually live in the future that you all are 
setting on fire for us. By 2028, crop yields are already 
projected to begin to fail with famine beginning to hit the 
world's most vulnerable populations. By 2038, current U.S. 
drought fire and extreme heat trends could potentially make 
whole regions of the United States unlivable if we continue the 
trends that lobbyists are trying to have us pursue, and we have 
a tipping point by 2036. We do not have the privilege or the 
luxury of lobbyist spin, and it is incredibly important that we 
don't reach net zero in some imaginary future, but that we 
actually cut through to carbon emissions reductions here in the 
United States and globally.
    I submit back to the chair.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Fallon, 
is now recognized for five minutes.
    [No response.]
    Chairwoman Maloney. Mr. Fallon.
    Mr. Fallon. Yes. Madam Chair, thank you.
    Chairwoman Maloney. OK.
    Mr. Fallon. Can you hear me?
    Chairwoman Maloney. We can hear you.
    Mr. Fallon. Oh wonderful. Thank you so much. I can remember 
being a child in the late 70's early 80's, and I was fascinated 
with global and geopolitical events. There was a dream back 
then that someday the United States could achieve energy 
independence. But see, at the time there were gas lines, there 
was an oil embargo, and I remember people were worried, and 
they were concerned, and they were scared. This dream, it was 
more like a pipe dream. We are on the cusp of achieving it now 
of American energy independence, and it is remarkable to me 
that this Administration and our friends across the aisle seem 
to be intent on us fumbling that ball. And unfortunately and 
unwittingly, their efforts are emboldening our enemies by 
hamstringing our own energy industry.
    Canceling the Keystone pipeline was a horrible idea, and 
the fact of the matter is, since 2000, the United States has 
been not only a leader in energy production in the world, but 
also in reducing CO2 emissions. And these are both remarkable 
achievements, and we should do everything in our power to 
continue to facilitate this kind of success. And the energy 
industry, let us not forget, is responsible for 10 million 
high-paying jobs in this country, and it is also a national 
security issue.
    We had a few months back former Secretary of State Mike 
Pompeo in Washington, and he talked to us about how he felt 
empowered as America's top diplomat on the world stage with 
foreign leaders because they wanted to engage with the United 
States. One of the primary specific reasons was because of our 
abundance of fossil fuels. But some of the folks in Congress 
seem to be intent on us letting Venezuela, and Iran, and China, 
and Russia, countries that aren't as committed to safety, they 
don't have the protocols, and the precautions, and the 
procedures, and the commitment to safety that we do in this 
country. That is why we should be exploring offshore, and 
drilling in Alaska, and the Keystone pipeline, because this 
country, when we produce energy, it is safer for the 
environment. It is better for everyone on the planet, and there 
is a definite moral case to be made for the fossil fuel 
industry and fossil fuels as a whole.
    In 1900, the life expectancy in this country was under 50 
years of age, about 46. Now, before COVID, it was 79 years. 
That is a 72 percent increase, and that is all races and creeds 
are living longer today primarily because of this industry. And 
our goal for everyone should be that human beings, not only in 
our country, but on the planet are allowed to live productive 
and meaningful lives. And if we want cleaner energy, we should 
at least use the expertise of the energy industry because they 
have shown and they have proven themselves to be innovators.
    And we had a committee hearing demonizing the oil industry 
a few months back, and one of the witnesses then was saying 
about we are going to be judged in history. In fact, one of our 
colleagues just said and made some very rather hyperbolic 
comments about how the future is being set on fire, of course, 
you know, crying that the sky is going to fall. By 2028, these 
dire predictions won't come true, and in 2038, they won't come 
true just like so many in 2000 that said that Florida would be 
underwater by 2020. They are not. But we will be judged by our 
actions today, and we will be judged in history just like so 
many of our folks in the Democratic majority that are going on 
wild multi-trillion-dollar deficit spending binges, that they 
are saddling our future generations, our children, my children, 
my sons with a crushing debt and forcing them into an 
inevitable and untenable financial crisis. So if we want more 
abundant, and inexpensive, and cleaner energy, which we all 
should do, these witnesses here should be the ones that we are 
supporting and applauding and not demonizing.
    Madam Chair, thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Khanna. [Presiding.] Thank you. The gentleman from 
Vermont, Mr. Welch, is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Welch. Thank you very much. You know, the issue here is 
credibility. The oil companies, when they began producing oil, 
discovering oil, did not know about climate change, but they 
were the first to learn about it, and then learning about it, 
concealed it and denied it. Mr. Woods, on June 6 of 1978, one 
of your excellent scientists, James Black, in the Product 
Research Division, circulated a presentation he had given to 
the management committee on the greenhouse effect: ``There is 
scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which 
mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon 
dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels.'' That is a 
quote. In your leadership of Exxon, are you aware of what 
action was taken by the board after that report to it about the 
greenhouse effect was presented?
    Mr. Woods. My understanding, Congressman, is that report 
summarizes the work of the broader scientific community, and a 
full reading of that report is consistent with the broader 
community, and the report----
    Mr. Welch. Well, let me go on. There are others here. You 
know, I don't have that much time. In December 18 of 1980, 
Exxon employee, Henry Shaw, sent an internal memo saying, ``an 
increase in the global average temperature of three degrees 
centigrade and uneven global distribution of increased 
rainfall, in addition to some particularly dramatic questions 
that might cause a series of global problems, such as melting 
of ice caps.'' Did Exxon, to your knowledge, share that 
information, really crucial information, with the public at 
that time?
    Mr. Woods. I wasn't working for the company at that time, 
several decades----
    Mr. Welch. You are not aware that that information was made 
available.
    Mr. Woods. My understanding is----
    Mr. Welch. On November 12----
    Mr. Woods [continuing]. We had no unique knowledge. We were 
basically----
    Mr. Welch. Well, let me just go through this because these 
are records from your own company, all right? These are not 
fake news. This is internal documents. On November 12, 1982, 
M.B. Glaser, manager of environmental affairs program, sent a 
memo to the Exxon management on the CO2 greenhouse effect 
saying, ``CO2 release is the most likely source of inadvertent 
climate modification, and the prevailing opinion attributes CO2 
increase to fossil fuel combustion.'' And finally it said that 
``Mitigation to the greenhouse effect would require major 
reductions in fossil fuel combustion.'' Did you disclose that 
to your shareholders, something that would be relevant to the 
value of your assets?
    Mr. Woods. My understanding is those reports were a 
synthesis of publicly available information.
    Mr. Welch. No, I didn't ask that.
    Mr. Woods [continuing]. The understanding.
    Mr. Welch. Did you disclose that to your shareholders in 
your report? That is my question.
    Mr. Woods. My understanding is it is a summarized----
    Mr. Welch. No, no, seriously. I am not asking what it is. I 
am asking whether that information was disclosed in your 
shareholder reports.
    Mr. Woods. I am not familiar with my reports from 30 years 
ago.
    Mr. Welch. All right. On February 22, 1989, Duane Levine 
presented a report to the board of directors. He stated, ``Data 
that greenhouse gases are increasing in the atmosphere and 
fossil fuels contribute to most of the CO2.'' To your 
knowledge, did Exxon disclose that to its shareholders?
    Mr. Woods. We made all of our research publicly available, 
Congressman. It is my understanding----
    Mr. Welch. OK. I don't mean to be difficult because it is a 
simple question. Did you disclose it to shareholders? ``Yes,'' 
``no,'' or ``I don't know.
    Mr. Woods. We made that research publicly available.
    Mr. Welch. Well----
    Mr. Woods. Consistent with the broader----
    Mr. Welch. On May 6 of 1996, nearly 20 years----
    Mr. Woods. We have----
    Mr. Welch. Let me go on, please. Exxon's Lee Raymond stated 
in a speech to the Economic Club of Detroit, ``The scientific 
evidence is inconclusive as to whether human activities are 
having a significant effect on the global climate.'' Do you 
agree with that?
    Mr. Woods. Congressman, our position taken back in that 
time, it is my understanding, was consistent with the general 
state of the scientific discussion and knowledge.
    Mr. Welch. So you don't agree with Mr. Tillerson.
    Mr. Woods. Well, I agree with----
    Mr. Welch. Finally, on June 30, 2021, Keith McCoy, who Ms. 
Ocasio-Cortez asked you about, acknowledged that Exxon has 
``aggressively fought climate science,'' that they have joined 
``shadow groups to work against some of the early efforts,'' 
and that Exxon's support of a carbon tax is purely ``a talking 
point.'' He said that Exxon is looking out for its investments. 
How is this knowledge that ExxonMobil had about the dramatic 
impact of fossil fuels and climate change any different than 
Big Tobacco knowing about smoking causing cancer, but denying 
it and continuing to peddle its product? Explain to me the 
difference.
    Mr. Woods. Well, as I said, at the time, Mr. McCoy's 
statements did not represent our policy or our approach with 
respect to our positions in this space.
    Mr. Welch. And the distinction between what Exxon knew and 
what Big Tobacco knew but didn't reveal? The difference is?
    Mr. Woods. All of our work was made publicly available. Our 
research was publicly available, and it was consistent and 
relied largely on outside work. We were part of the broader 
scientific community working in this space, and we had no 
unique views.
    Mr. Welch. Well, thank you. My time is up, and I yield 
back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. [Presiding.] The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Clyde, is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Clyde. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have noticed a trend 
going on here of holding hearings on legislation that has 
already passed the House, such as you did with H.R. 3755, the 
abortion on demand bill, and the Equal Rights Amendment. As 
with that trend, I have begun to pick up on another trend that 
we are setting, and, unfortunately, this one is more 
disturbing. The new trend is that this committee continues to 
use or, rather, should I say, continues to abuse its power to 
conduct oversight into the private activities of private 
citizens and private companies, which ultimately results in 
nothing more than one big public shaming campaign. In my 10 
months here in this committee, I have been made aware that my 
Democrat colleagues have leveraged both letters and subpoena 
threats to either compel private entities to appear before the 
committee or to hand over privileged and, mind you, protected 
materials for the committee staff to ransack.
    In this congressional session alone, we have seen this 
committee engage in this manner with Cyber Ninjas, the National 
Football League, the Sackler family, and now we are seeing them 
do it to the companies before us today. This committee used to 
be called the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. It 
is now just called the Committee on Oversight and Reform. The 
day the majority chose to remove ``government'' from this 
committee's title was a big red flag to all that House 
Democrats might truly believe their authorities go beyond four 
corners of the United States Constitution. This committee 
should focus its oversight activities and investigation on 
government operations, not inject itself into private 
operations.
    To our witnesses, I want all of you to know that I support 
an all-in approach to ensure our Nation is energy independent. 
History is no stranger to the energy crisis we are experiencing 
today as once thriving towns and cities shuddered when the main 
driving force of the economy, the coal mines, closed. We are 
now seeing this chilling effect, particularly in the oil and 
gas realm, happen on a macro scale ever since President Biden 
enacted, by executive fiat, his green policies, such as evident 
when President Biden chose to shut down the Keystone XL 
pipeline on his first day in office, a decision that resulted 
in hundreds of people losing out on good-paying jobs and that 
seriously undercut our Nation's ability to be energy 
independent and a net energy exporter. And to add salt to an 
open wound, President Biden immediately greenlighted Russia's 
Nord Stream 2 pipeline when he chose to withdraw sanctions in 
May.
    The President's energy policy simply does not make sense. 
He demands we decrease domestic production, yet he pleads for 
OPEC to increase their production. OPEC refused, and this 
disparity in supply became the cause of skyrocketing gas prices 
Americans are seeing at the pump. Hardworking people and 
families are paying the price for these terrible energy 
policies, and seniors and families on fixed incomes especially 
are at risk of losing their homes and are being forced to 
choose between heating their homes or putting food on the 
table. And that is even before President Biden's proposed 
heating tax found in his absurd big government socialism 
spending bill called budget reconciliation. It is shameful, 
but, again, you all have not been called here today to help us 
conduct oversight of the Biden Administration's policies. No, 
you have been called here so my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle can drag you through the mud.
    My first question is for Mr. Sommers of the Petroleum 
Institute. Given the energy crisis, Mr. Sommers, of countries 
in the EU and Asia, what they are currently experiencing, many 
may argue that that is a direct result of pressures to 
prematurely divest from reliable fossil fuel development. How 
can the United States avoid a similar fate as the EU and Asia 
is experiencing, sir?
    Mr. Sommers. Congressman, thank you for your question. I do 
think that the there is a flashing warning sign in Europe right 
now as energy prices continue to go up. It is mainly a 
consequence of a lack of supply, and they are going to continue 
to need more energy as their economy grows. Another major 
concern that Europe should have is that one of the reasons why 
natural gas prices, in particular, have gone up is because 
Russia has decided not to export natural gas to the EU during 
this critical time. It is, I think, a real warning for American 
consumers and the world that if you don't create your own 
supply at home, you are dependent on supplies from regimes that 
don't necessarily have your interests at heart. And I think the 
Europeans and other parts of the world are finding out the 
importance of creating a supply to ensure that we have access 
to affordable and reliable energy for decades and decades to 
come here in this country.
    Mr. Clyde. Thank you. I appreciate that, and I will note 
that our adversaries are very capable of using energy as a 
weapon--Russia--and we have done nothing but help them when we 
have greenlighted the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. And with that, I 
yield back, Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Kelly, is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Ms. Kelly. Thank you for being here today. Your companies 
all claim to have net zero ambitions, and since you all claim 
to support the Paris Agreement, then you should have net zero 
greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century. But the record seems 
to suggest that the companies represented here have a long way 
to go to get there. Ms. Watkins, in its February 2021 Energy 
Transition Strategy, Shell said, and I quote, ``aligned with 
the more ambitious goals of the Paris Agreement to limit the 
average global temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-
industrial levels.'' Is that correct?
    Ms. Watkins. That is the ambition of the Paris Agreement. 
Yes, that is correct.
    Ms. Kelly. Thank you. Shell said it aims to become a net 
zero energy business by 2050 and have set goals to cut the 
carbon content of its products by 20 percent by 2030 to 
phaseout carbon emissions by 2050. Is that correct?
    Ms. Watkins. Net zero by 2050 is correct, yes, and we just 
announced today a goal to cut our Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 
half by 2030.
    Ms. Kelly. And why does independent analysis find that 
Shell's net zero pledge fails to meet the Paris Agreement 
goals?
    Ms. Watkins. I am sorry, Congresswoman, I am not familiar 
with the independent analysis that you are talking about. But 
what I can say is that the company I work for is absolutely 
committed to these goals that we put out there. My compensation 
is directly linked to that, and we look forward to continuing 
to accelerate the energy transition in collaboration with folks 
like yourself, the government, with our customers, with 
segments of the industry. This is something that we can't do 
alone as one company. It really needs to be done in 
collaboration with society and with the government.
    Ms. Kelly. OK. Yes, from what I was reading, it says, 
``Shell's strategy only decreases oil production by 1 to 2 
percent annually through 2030 while it increases gas production 
four percent over the same time period.'' And according to the 
2021 United Nations Production Gap Report, the world must 
decrease oil production by four percent and gas production by 3 
percent annually between 2020 and 2030 to limit warming to 1.5 
degrees Celsius. And over a 10-year period, this would equate 
to a 50-percent increase in gas production for Shell compared 
to the nearly 30 percent decline we need to reach the goals 
scientists say are necessary to limit the most dangerous 
impacts of climate change. And then earlier this year, Shell 
appealed an order by a Dutch court to cut emissions by 45 
percent by 2030. So can you tell me, does Shell plan to comply 
with the court order to cut emissions by 45 percent by 2030? 
You can just say ``yes'' or ``no.''
    Ms. Watkins. Congresswoman, one of the reasons we put out 
the goal we put out today is because we see an opportunity to 
accelerate our Powering Progress Strategy. And so cutting our 
Scope 1 and 2 emissions by half by 2030 is a new target. I am 
very proud of my company for being aggressive.
    Ms. Kelly. So was that a ``yes'' or ``no?''
    Ms. Watkins. We are in the----
    Ms. Kelly. I am just asking you ``yes'' or ``no'' because I 
don't have a lot of time. That is all.
    Ms. Watkins. We are in the process of appealing the Dutch 
court order, and so while we are in action to get to net zero 
by 2050, and we have many targets between now and then to hit, 
we are appealing the court order because we don't think the 
courts is the right place to decide this.
    Ms. Kelly. So it sounds like even though Shell's transition 
strategy calls for cutting emissions by 2030, the company is 
resisting efforts to get there. And is that because Shell's 
transition strategy to reduce the intensity of its carbon 
output from oil production relies in part on Shell increasing 
its gas productions? Is that correct?
    Ms. Watkins. Congresswoman, I would say that I have a 
different way of putting that. We are not resisting. In fact, 
we are embracing the opportunity to transition faster, which is 
why we are working to increase the demand for low and no carbon 
fuels. So that that is actually how I would characterize it, as 
embracing the energy transition.
    Ms. Kelly. So you can't characterize it as a ``yes'' or 
``no'' then because experts warn this plan will backslide 
further to mere operational efficiency rather than reducing the 
overall climate burden of your product. So again, ``yes'' or 
``no,'' will Shell commit to reducing gas production as part of 
its emissions reduction plans, Ms. Watkins?
    Ms. Watkins. Congresswoman, we have committed to a number 
of things, and we believe natural gas plays a key role as a 
transition fuel in order to continue to lower emissions for the 
country. And so we are committed to providing that cleaner 
burning fuel to the world. So we are committed to natural gas 
over time, but we are also very much committed to continuing to 
work with our customers to look at no carbon fuels, such as 
wind and solar. We are building wind turbines off the coast of 
New Jersey and Massachusetts, and we will continue to look for 
opportunities to do that, but the demand needs to be there.
    Ms. Kelly. That is good to hear that you are looking, but a 
lot of things you are saying are not supported by evidence. So 
it shows that it is time for Congress to act, and we can begin 
by passing the Build Back Better Act to combat climate change 
and spur the development of renewables. And I yield back. I 
know my time is up. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. The gentleman from Arizona, 
Mr. Biggs, is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have been in and out 
of this hearing, but I heard the opening statements and 
listened to a good deal of the questioning of this morning. And 
I will tell you that if there is one thing that I hope those 
leading these very important energy companies and the Petroleum 
Institute understand is that you have kind of got yourself 
here. You have seen the attitude. You have heard the attitude 
from the folks from the left on this committee. It is because 
of your appeasement. That is what it is. So when you get asked 
this morning about aren't you embarrassed, that is really kind 
of an irrational question to ask CEOs about their company 
policy, to ask and to vilify you and basically say will you 
repudiate your membership in a manufacturing institute, to then 
say and repeatedly ask the question and to badger you. That is 
because you have been appeasing. I am not saying that you 
shouldn't do your best to reduce carbon emissions and run a 
clean company. I am saying that you have been brought here so 
they could beat the crap out of you. That is what this is all 
about. And they are doing it for political reason, and that is 
the shame of it all.
    This is a hearing where the Democrats attack American 
workers and the private sector. The President and his allies in 
Congress has consistently advocated for policies that have led 
to higher energy prices and increased inflation. In fact, you 
have got Ron Klain retweeting this--he is the chief of staff at 
the White House--saying, ``Most of the economic problems we are 
facing''--inflation, et cetera--are high-class problems.'' 
Well, even The New York Times has said this year's Thanksgiving 
feast will wallop the wallet, and that is a result of Biden's 
policies, and part of those policies are to put two screws on 
the energy industry.
    Some of the inflation is systemic, but some of it is driven 
by scarcity, just economic market-driven principles. So I hope 
you get the lesson because if nothing else I say matters, I 
think you need to know something. These folks would regulate 
you right out of business tomorrow if they could--don't pretend 
otherwise--no matter how good corporate citizens you are or how 
sincere you are in trying to reduce carbon emissions. That is 
the purpose of this hearing today is to lay the foundation to 
get rid of you.
    And at the same time, you see the hypocrisy or 
inconsistency of this Administration. Here is one dated today, 
this very morning. You have got Amos Hochstein, the U.S. State 
Department senior adviser for energy security, saying, ``Energy 
producers, particularly OPEC, should be increasing its 
output.'' Here is one from two weeks ago: ``U.S. Worried Energy 
Supply is Not Meeting Demand.'' That is where we are headed in 
the future. What you do is important. Never forget it is 
important.
    At the same time, you got the Biden Administration stopping 
issuing new oil and gas leases for drilling on Federal land, 
canceling the Keystone pipeline within hours of taking office, 
and then removing sanctions on Russia's Nord Stream 2 pipeline, 
increasing Europe's dependence on Russian oil. We hear this 
from Mikhail Krutikhin, an energy analyst at the Consultancy of 
Russ Energy, saying, ``We decided we will let them freeze a 
good bit this winter, and then they will become more talkative 
and won't insist on quickly abandoning gas. The stakes are very 
high.'' This is a high-stakes game. The Russians get it. You 
get it. My colleagues across the aisle don't get it. 
congressional Democrats' proposals for fixing the problem they 
caused are worse than President Biden's. Their tax and spend 
budget reconciliation bill will increase energy prices and 
cripple the American economy. With gas prices at a seven-year 
high, Democrats in Congress are considering enacting a carbon 
tax to pay for their socialist policies. They love, they love 
to tout their support of the Green New Deal claiming that it is 
the only way to fight climate change. However, it excludes 
nuclear energy, despite the fact that nuclear energy is carbon 
free, low cost, and is a reliable energy source. A Democrat 
member's former chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, stated, 
``The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn't 
originally a climate change thing at all because we really 
think of it as a how do you change the entire economy thing.'' 
He told the truth. Occasionally you are going to get that out.
    I urge you continue being good corporate citizens but 
understand appeasement will lead to the demise of your industry 
and your company, which will result in thousands and hundreds 
of thousands of people losing work and living in poverty and 
impoverished state.
    And, Madam Chair, I have a number of articles I would like 
to submit for the record.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
    Mr. Biggs. I have one called, ``Oil Leases with U.S. Urging 
Producers to Ramp Up Supplies,'' dated today's date. I have one 
from Reuters, dated October 7, ``U.S. Worried Energy Supply Not 
Meeting Demand, Top Biden Adviser Says.'' And I have additional 
ones. Let's see here. We got ``As Europe Faces a Cold Winter, 
Putin Seizes on Leverage from Russia's Gas Output,'' from The 
New York Times dated yesterday.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired. We 
will submit all the articles you would like into the record.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis, 
is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Davis. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for holding this 
hearing, and let me thank all of our witnesses for being here 
and being with us today.
    Mr. Woods, I would like to ask you a few questions about 
your company's position on carbon pricing. Exxon's lobbying 
website states, and I quote, ``Without exception, the company's 
lobbying efforts are aligned with its publicly available 
positions.'' Is that correct?
    Mr. Woods. Yes, it is.
    Mr. Davis. This reflects and refers to carbon pricing or 
carbon taxes. Is that correct?
    Mr. Woods. I am sorry. Could you repeat the question, 
please?
    Mr. Davis. It relates to carbon pricing or carbon taxes. Is 
that correct?
    Mr. Woods. We do advocate for a carbon tax or a price on 
carbon, yes.
    Mr. Davis. So is it fair to say that Exxon has taken a 
public position in support of a price on carbon?
    Mr. Woods. Yes.
    Mr. Davis. I ask because committee staff reviewed Exxon's 
lobbying reports along with those of other companies, and the 
committee's analysis found that since 2011, Exxon and its 
lobbyists have filed 344 reports involved in lobbying on tax 
legislation or tax policy. Does this figure sound about right 
to you?
    Mr. Woods. I don't have those numbers available to me.
    Mr. Davis. All right. Well, according to your company's 
filing, these lobbying efforts focused on a variety of 
legislative and policy issues, including protecting oil and gas 
tax breaks and preserving the corporate tax benefits in 
President Trump's signature tax spending bill. Since 2011, 46 
bills have been introduced in the House and the Senate to deal 
with carbon pricing. Mr. Woods, would you take a guess at the 
number of Exxon's lobbing reports during this time that 
referenced attacks or price on carbon?
    Mr. Woods. I haven't seen the report, so I don't know what 
that number would be.
    Mr. Davis. Well, thank you. Our information says 12, that 
Exxon reported only 12 instances of lobbying on Federal 
legislation that would tax or price carbon. Mr. Woods, your 
company's lack of action on an issue it says it supports sends 
a rather interesting signal, and this goes for all the 
organizations represented here today. Over the last decade, 
Exxon, Chevron, BP, Shell, API, and their outside lobbyists 
filed nearly 6,000 lobbying reports. The committee identified 
only 34 times that these companies and API reported lobbying on 
any of bills that address carbon pricing. Meanwhile, they 
lobbied 77 times just on President Trump's tax cuts. If you do 
the math, it pretty much means that Exxon, Chevron, BP, Shell, 
and API reported lobbying 150 times more frequently to carve 
out corporate giveaways in President Trump's tax cuts and job 
action than on all carbon pricing legislation. So if it wasn't 
for the analysis that the committee released today, none of us 
sitting here would know what their pledges are and that their 
pledges don't hold up under scrutiny.
    So I thank you for your answers and appreciate your being 
here. And, Madam Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Kansas, Mr. LaTurner, is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. LaTurner. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Climate change 
is an issue that we need to be serious about addressing 
properly. The concern of this committee today, however, is 
climate misinformation. As it turns out, there is a lot of 
misinformation surrounding the energy crisis facing our Nation. 
The truth is Americans are experiencing the highest gas prices 
since the Obama Administration, record high inflation, and 
spiking natural gas prices as we approach the coldest months of 
the year. It is no secret that as energy prices skyrocket, the 
cost to ship goods and keep the lights on for manufacturers 
goes up, and that increased cost is then passed down to the 
consumer.
    According to The Wall Street Journal's ``Market Watch,'' 
the latest monthly numbers indicate a 5.3 percent increase in 
the Consumer Price Index. In my home state of Kansas, farmers 
have to pay for this Administration's shortsighted and 
counterproductive policies in the form of record-high 
fertilizer prices which have surpassed even the previous peaks 
of the 2008 global financial crisis. Instead of combating this 
crisis, the White House has doubled down on progressive 
policies that created this perfect storm of inflation in the 
first place and forced hardworking Americans to dig deeper into 
their pockets to pick up the tab.
    It is misinformation to suggest that these rising prices 
and taxes are a necessary evil in achieving our long-term 
environmental goals, especially when the U.S. is forced to 
outsource our crude oil and raw materials from countries with 
less stringent emission standards than us. The Administration's 
policies also undermine our energy independence. The White 
House could have made it easier for American companies to 
increase domestic production and hire more U.S. workers, but, 
instead, the President begged OPEC and Russia to increase 
global output to combat the spiking fuel prices. Dependence on 
Russia and China to fuel our country's baseload and power our 
electric grid is a national security threat and does nothing to 
mitigate carbon emissions globally.
    Some of my colleagues seem to think it is impossible to 
have both affordable, bountiful, and innovative energy while 
also having clean air and water. That is simply not true. Oil 
and gas produced here in America is among the cleanest and 
safest in the world. The United States has been a world leader 
in reducing carbon emissions over the past two decades without 
socialist policies or complete reliance on inconsistent sources 
like wind and solar. The data proves that the private sector is 
tackling climate change without burdensome Federal regulation, 
and Congress should continue to allow them to do so.
    Mr. Sommers, can you describe some of the ways that the 
Green New Deal policies, particularly included in the 
reconciliation proposal, would affect your industry?
    Mr. Sommers. Congressman, thank for your question. We as an 
industry have taken on the climate challenge, and, in fact, API 
released earlier this year our Climate Action Framework, which 
is a five-step plan to address the climate challenge as an 
industry. Three of those actions are actually things that we 
are going to do even if Congress doesn't act on climate change 
in this Congress or in the future because we know it is a 
challenge and we know it has to be addressed. And we know that 
this industry has the technological know-how and the engineers 
in place and the scientists and geologists in place who can 
tackle this challenge from the private sector.
    Notwithstanding that, we do believe that Congress should 
also act on climate change. And because we disagree with some 
of the provisions in the reconciliation package doesn't mean 
that we don't take climate change seriously. We do have some 
concerns about what is currently in the package, and we have 
worked to educate lawmakers on those concerns. One of the 
concerns that we have is the proposal of a natural gas tax that 
would potentially increase costs on consumers during a time 
when energy prices are already spiking. One of the original 
proposals also included a clean energy performance payment plan 
that did not include natural gas. As we have talked about 
earlier in this hearing, one of the real reasons that we have 
been able to cut emissions over time is because of natural gas. 
We need to continue to incentivize that fuel switch from coal 
to natural gas so that we can continue on that road to progress 
of cutting U.S. emissions.
    Mr. LaTurner. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I 
yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, is 
recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair. As we all 
know, Congress and President Biden are hard at work to pass the 
Build Back Better Act to take bold, aggressive, and long 
overdue action on climate change. But many of the witnesses 
today vigorously opposed key climate provisions in the Build 
Back Better Act. I find that offensive being from ground zero 
in the state of Florida where climate change and its impact is 
not a someday thing. It is a right now thing. And according to 
InfluenceMap, for example, BP, Shell, ExxonMobil, and Chevron 
collectively spend more than $150 million every year on 
lobbying and policy influence activities, but they do this to 
protect their trillions of dollars in revenues.
    Ms. Clark, my first question is for you. How much has the 
Chamber of Commerce spent to defeat the Build Back Better Act?
    Ms. Clark. Sorry. I don't have that number off the top of 
my head.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Well, give me a ballpark.
    Ms. Clark. I really couldn't.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You have no idea how much the 
Chamber of Commerce has spent on lobbying targeted at the Build 
Back Better Act?
    Ms. Clark. No, I don't.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You are not doing your job very well 
if you don't know that answer, but I will just give you an 
idea. Just in September, the Chamber launched a six-figure ad 
campaign just to pressure House Democrats to try to vote down 
the reconciliation package. And, you know, for a while, the 
Chamber actually participated in House GOP leadership strategy 
calls to defeat the reconciliation package. Perhaps you weren't 
aware of that either, but that is that is something that 
actually happened. The Chamber released a statement earlier 
this month that said, ``The Chamber is continuing and expanding 
its efforts to defeat the reconciliation bill and opposes 
efforts to link the infrastructure bill to the reconciliation 
bill.'' That is just grossly irresponsible, and what you should 
be doing is working toward trying to find compromise, not just 
spending millions of dollars to defeat something and work 
against our progress on addressing the climate change issue.
    Mr. Sommers, what about the American Petroleum Institute? 
What did API spend to defeat the Build Back Better Act?
    Mr. Sommers. Congresswoman, we have worked to influence the 
process, particularly on issues that will affect oil and gas.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right. Reclaiming my time. My 
question is to the tune of how much money.
    Mr. Sommers. Congresswoman, I don't have those numbers at 
my fingertips.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes, I assumed you would answer that 
way, but let me just illuminate things for folks listening to 
this. API used its front group, Energy Citizens, to flood 
Facebook with hundreds of ads in 140 congressional districts 
aimed in opposition to the reconciliation package. Here is a 
bewildering example of hypocrisy. The Build Back Better Act 
contains provisions to tackle, for example, methane pollution 
from oil and natural gas production which API claims to support 
the reduction of methane emissions. Yet API and its front 
group, Energy Citizens, have carried out a seven-figure TV and 
internet ad campaign to defeat the Build Back Better methane 
emissions fee. Mr. Sommers, how do you reconcile your group's 
claims to support reducing methane emissions with your 
opposition to Build Back Better provisions that address methane 
emissions?
    Mr. Sommers. Thank you for your question, Congresswoman. In 
fact, the American Petroleum Institute supports the Federal 
regulation of methane for both new and existing sources. We 
expect the new regulation to come out soon from the Biden 
Administration, and we have been working with them on making 
sure that that regulation makes sense and that it is reducing 
methane emissions over time. Furthermore----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. All right. Reclaiming my time----
    Mr. Sommers [continuing]. This industry----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I am sorry. Reclaiming my time. 
Except you are opposing the reduction policies on methane 
emissions in the Build Back Better Act, which is the proposal 
of the Biden Administration. So you are either lying about your 
support for reducing methane emissions or you are working 
against yourself, which makes no sense and certainly isn't 
money well spent by your institution.
    Mr. Sommers. Respectfully, Congresswoman----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. No, the time is mine. Thank you. Mr. 
Woods, your company is a member of API, for example, and API 
actively lobbies to crush good climate policies as I have just 
illuminated. Your own former senior director of Federal 
relations admitted using groups like API to take the tough 
questions and be a ``whipping boy'' during congressional 
hearings. How can you tell us with a straight face that you are 
part of the solution to climate change when you are part of the 
lobbying effort to stifle policies to fight climate change?
    Mr. Woods. Well, as I said shortly after the interview was 
released, that characterization offered up was incorrect and 
did not reflect the position that our company has taken or the 
philosophy that we take.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Woods, you can say what you want 
about climate change, but words matter. Actions matter more, 
and this hearing illustrates the problems we face. Industry 
players talk out of both sides of their mouths. Big Oil may 
talk about climate change and emission reductions and put 
shiny, polished green colored ads on TV telling Americans they 
are part of the solution. But when President Biden and 
congressional Democrats try to advance solutions to actually 
fight the climate crisis, the fossil fuel industry reaches into 
its deep pockets to kill these commonsense solutions. You are 
no better than Big Tobacco in the 90's.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson, is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this 
hearing.
    Mr. Woods, ExxonMobil Corporation now publicly acknowledges 
the climate crisis while privately funding organizations that 
promote climate denial or misinformation. Isn't it true that 
between 1998 and 2017, ExxonMobil Corporation spent $36 million 
with think tanks promoting climate denial?
    Mr. Woods. I can't comment on the figure that you have 
offered up. I would tell you that our position that we have 
taken and what we worked----
    Mr. Johnson. Well, you would not disagree with that amount, 
would you?
    Mr. Woods. I don't have the number, so I can't confirm or 
deny the amount. But I would tell you the position that we take 
with the groups we work with is consistent with the position 
that we take publicly. We don't have to----
    Mr. Johnson. You deny climate change as being connected 
with CO2 emissions, correct?
    Mr. Woods. Pardon? I am sorry. I missed your question.
    Mr. Johnson. You spend a lot of money to get across the 
false point that CO2 emissions do not impact climate.
    Mr. Woods. No, I don't agree with that characterization. We 
do not spend money. We have long acknowledged the linkage 
between CO2 emissions and the risk of climate change.
    Mr. Johnson. Well, let me ask you this question. Back in 
1979, ExxonMobil commissioned a groundbreaking study that 
discovered that fossil fuels released carbon emissions that 
would ``endanger humanity.'' However, isn't it true, Mr. Woods, 
that no operational changes were made to respond to the 
horrifying findings that the company's business operations and 
products were endangering humanity?
    Mr. Woods. Congress, I am not aware of any unique 
understanding that we had in the science. We engaged with the 
broader community and worked with them to advance our own 
understanding, and as time passed and scientific understanding 
evolved, so did our position and the approach that we took to 
addressing emissions.
    Mr. Johnson. Well, let me ask you this question, sir. The 
American Petroleum Institute has known since as early as 1957 
that carbon emissions were dangerously warming the atmosphere, 
and multiple studies published by ExxonMobil and BP found 
similar results in subsequent years, only to be publicized the 
first time in 2015 and 2018, respectively. Mr. Woods, when did 
you first learn that CO2 emissions cause climate change?
    Mr. Woods. Our company from the very early days has worked 
with the outside scientific group, and our understanding our 
and our public position has been consistent with that 
understanding.
    Mr. Johnson. Well, let me ask Mr. Lawler the question. Mr. 
Lawler, when did you first learn that CO2 emissions cause 
climate change?
    Mr. Lawler. Thank you for the question. So BP was aware 
early on, very early on, that there was----
    Mr. Johnson. Was it before 2018?
    Mr. Lawler. I would say before, even in the 90's and 80's, 
we were aware of reports that were out. There was a lot of 
science. There was a lot of debate that was published during 
that time period. But I would say that BP focused on the 
landmark IPCC study in 1996, and in 1997, our then CEO, John 
Browne, acknowledged that the scientific community----
    Mr. Johnson. Well, I want to break in right here. Research 
shows that between 2010 and 2018, only 2.3 percent of your 
investments per capita expenditures went to low carbon 
energies. Is that true?
    Mr. Lawler. Yes, sir, it is true, but what I would say is 
that----
    Mr. Johnson. And isn't it also true, Mr. Lawler, that BP 
earned $183.5 billion in 2020?
    Mr. Lawler. I would have to check that figure. I know in--
--
    Mr. Johnson. That means you could not tell me how much of 
that $183.5 billion was reinvested in clean energy production?
    Mr. Lawler. Are you speaking to revenue or profit? That 
number seems high. We----
    Mr. Johnson. Well, you would know better than I.
    Mr. Lawler. Well, we had----
    Mr. Johnson. You actually profited $183.5 billion in 2020.
    Mr. Lawler. Well, we had something called a replacement 
cost profit of around $4 to $5 billion in 2020.
    Mr. Johnson. Well, my question is, how much of that was 
reinvested in clean energy production?
    Mr. Lawler. So in the last two years, we have spent $2 
billion on clean energy projects.
    Mr. Johnson. Two billion out of $183.5 billion. For the 
people suffering from the impacts of wildfires, floods, and 
hurricanes right now, 30 years is too long to wait for your 
company to change. How do you square the reality of facts on 
the ground with your 2050 date to decrease carbon emissions?
    Mr. Lawler. Congressman, I have a project that I can share 
with you right now that is amazing. We have installed a 300-
megawatt solar facility that is powering the only steel mill in 
the world with green energy. We are in action. We spent $1.1 
billion to join an offshore wind farm just offshore New York. 
We will spend billions behind that and we are in action. We 
have very clear targets. And, again, we have stepped forward 
that we would be reducing our overall production, our absolute 
production, on a worldwide basis by 40 percent by the year 
2030. So we are in action.
    Mr. Johnson. The world can't wait.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired, and 
the gentleman may continue answering the question, but his time 
has expired.
    Mr. Lawler. I would just add, Congressman, that we do have 
near-term targets that are significant to cut methane, to cut 
emissions. Fifteen percent of our executive compensation pay is 
linked to sustainable emissions reductions. But I can just 
assure you that we are sincere, we are in motion, and we are 
taking action on a number of projects. And again, by 2025, we 
will be spending $3 to $4 billion, $5 billion in 2030, so we 
are sincere.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Maloney. OK. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentlewoman from Massachusetts, Ms. Pressley, is 
recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney. We must treat 
this climate crisis like lives depend on it because they quite 
literally do. In my district, the Massachusetts 7th, the sea 
level rise caused by an increase in global temperatures, which 
is a direct result of the continued operations of the oil and 
gas companies before this committee, will destabilize families 
and sink entire communities. From Cambridge and Chelsea to 
Fenway and East Boston, my constituents are living in regions 
that will be completely under water if we do not take bold 
action to transition to 100 percent renewable, zero emission 
energy sources as outlined in the Green New Deal.
    And as I fight for the livelihoods of my neighbors, I am 
clear eyed that my opposition is the massive lobbying campaign 
by the billion-dollar corporations appearing before this 
committee today. Your companies invest hundreds of millions of 
dollars in lobbying efforts each year, some of which is 
disclosed and reported. But the truth is these amounts 
represent only a fraction of what is actually spent against our 
efforts to save lives and our planet. We know a key part of Big 
Oil's disinformation campaign is funding and backing so-called 
shadow groups to fight against our climate justice efforts. 
Shadow groups are think tanks, pressure organizations, and 
other groups who receive funding from industry to engage in 
advocacy the industry doesn't want its fingerprints on.
    Mr. Woods, after your former lobbyist admitted joining 
shadow groups to undermine efforts on climate, Exxon stated 
that his comments were ``entirely inconsistent'' with your 
company's work. Mr. Woods, do you stand by that statement? 
``Yes'' or ``no.''
    Mr. Woods. Yes, I do.
    Ms. Pressley. Mr. Woods, is it your testimony that Exxon 
has not at any point funded any think tanks, advocacy 
organizations, or other shadow groups against climate change 
efforts? ``Yes'' or ``no.''
    Mr. Woods. The position we take is transparent, and we 
publish the groups that we support on our website.
    Ms. Pressley. Well, whatever your statements are now, I 
think, you know, the truth is clear here that for years Exxon 
has funded dozens of these shadow groups, like the Heartland 
Institute, for example, a leading climate science denial group, 
which has stated that global warming is actually good for the 
planet. Mr. Woods, do you commit right here to stop funding 
organizations that reject the science of climate change? 
``Yes'' or ``no.''
    Mr. Woods. We do not support the Heartland Group, so.
    Ms. Pressley. ``Yes'' or ``no,'' do you commit right here 
to not fund organizations that reject the science of climate 
change?
    Mr. Woods. We do not support climate denial. We do not ask 
people to lobby anything different than what our publicly 
supported positions or expressed positions are.
    Ms. Pressley. With millions of dollars that are going to 
lobbyist, super PACs, and shadow groups, these corporations 
refuse to invest in their own workers to ensure they have a 
future in a renewable energy economy. A just transition from 
pollution-based profits to healthy green living means that no 
worker will be left behind. Mr. Woods, what percentage of 
ExxonMobil's annual revenue is being used to train your workers 
for jobs in the renewable energy sectors? What percentage?
    Mr. Woods. We are focused on making sure that our work 
force is capable of operating our current operations, and we 
are investing time and resources----
    Ms. Pressley. I am sorry----
    Mr. Woods [continuing]. In developing new solutions.
    Ms. Pressley. I am going to reclaim my time since you 
weren't providing a percentage. So will you commit to providing 
this committee with the documentation to this answer?
    Mr. Woods. We will work with you to give you what you need.
    Ms. Pressley. All right. Mr. Wirth, what percentage of 
Chevron's annual revenue is being used to train your workers 
for jobs in renewable energy sectors?
    Mr. Wirth. Congresswoman, I don't have a number on that. I 
can tell you we are committed to meeting the needs of the world 
today and the future in regard to our work force, and we are 
prepared to do that.
    Ms. Pressley. Sorry. I am going to run out of time. Will 
you commit to providing this committee with the documentation 
on this answer?
    Mr. Wirth. We will work with the committee to provide 
responses.
    Ms. Pressley. All right. Ms. Watkins, what percentage of 
Shell's annual revenue is being used to train your workers for 
jobs in renewable energy sectors?
    Ms. Watkins. Congresswoman, I don't have a number, but I 
will be happy to work with you to get one. What I can say is 
that what we are finding is that we have engineers that have 
built offshore oil and gas platforms in the Gulf.
    Ms. Pressley. I am sorry.
    Ms. Watkins. We are now able to----
    Ms. Pressley. I am going to run out of time but thank you 
for that commitment to work with the committee.
    Ms. Pressley. Mr. Lawler, what percentage of BP America's 
annual revenue is being used to train your workers for jobs in 
renewable energy sectors?
    Mr. Lawler. I will need to review what that number is, but 
what I can say is we are creating entire business units for the 
renewable sector. Entire business units, spending up to $5 
billion a year by 2030.
    Ms. Pressley. Would you work with the committee to provide 
us with those actual percentages?
    Mr. Lawler. Yes, we will.
    Ms. Pressley. OK. So I think the point here is that putting 
profits before people like those in my district and the workers 
in their very own companies is the reason this crisis is so 
dire. One climate scientist said, ``What we do in the next 10 
years will matter for 10,000 years.'' I believe that what we do 
in the next 10 days on infrastructure investments will be the 
true predictor of our planet's future. The Build Back Better 
Act is a climate justice bill and a workers justice bill. We 
can and we must act with urgency.
    Thank you and I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Comer, is recognized.
    Mr. Comer. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Sommers, what do you 
predict the global demand for oil will be as the United States 
in the world recover from the coronavirus pandemic?
    Mr. Sommers. Thank you, Congressman, for your question. 
What we are already starting to see, as I mentioned in a 
previous answer, is that world oil demand has already risen 
significantly. Pre-pandemic, so in 2019, the world was 
consuming 100 million barrels of oil every single day. During 
the worst part of the pandemic in April 2020, the world 
consumed about 81 million barrels of oil every single day. We 
are close now back to the 100 million barrels of oil use every 
single day, and as the economy continues to grow, we expect 
that to expand as well.
    Mr. Comer. So if the industry does, as some of my 
Democratic colleagues have suggested and asked you to pledge to 
cut production, what would that do to the price of oil for 
everyday working Americans----
    Mr. Sommers. Well, Congressman----
    Mr. Comer [continuing]. If the demand is going up?
    Mr. Sommers. Congressman, we are already starting to see 
that, you know, because of worker shortages, because of 
concerns about future and current government regulations----
    Mr. Comer. Because the Biden policies. Because of the Biden 
energy policy is why we are seeing energy prices go up, and 
what my colleagues on the left are proposing is only going to 
make it worse. Sir, despite some of the rhetoric from your 
critics, the oil and gas industry has taken meaningful steps to 
reduce emissions from operations. Can you describe briefly some 
of the efforts under way and some of the planned industry 
initiatives to address this challenge head on?
    Mr. Sommers. Absolutely. Absolutely. Thank you, 
Congressman, for that question. The American Petroleum 
Institute since 2017 has had a program called the Environmental 
Partnership. This is a program that is all about how do you 
reduce methane emissions within our own operations. This 
program has seen tremendous success. It is a program that 
primarily works with our member companies and non-member API 
companies to replace products within the oil and gas industry 
that are leading to methane emissions. And as a consequence of 
this, we have big operators and small operators working 
together to ensure that our methane emissions continue to go 
down. In fact, as a consequence of this program and other 
programs like it, we have been able to reduce methane emissions 
by 70 percent in five of the largest oil and gas producing 
regions, like the Permian Basin.
    Mr. Comer. Yes.
    Mr. Sommers. We are proud of the work that we have done, 
and we know that we have to continue that work to respond to 
consumers that want to make sure that their energy continues to 
come affordably, reliably, but also cleaner.
    Mr. Comer. Absolutely, and that gets lost in translation. 
The industry has made significant investment already. You plan 
on making significant investment in the future. We are seeing a 
reduction in emissions, and I think that that has been lost in 
translation with the rhetoric on the other side. Now, briefly, 
I am going to shift gears. Mr. Crabtree, you are a member of 
the union, right?
    Mr. Crabtree. Yes, Congressman.
    Mr. Comer. You know, a few years ago when I started out in 
the Kentucky State House of Representatives, the union was 
pretty Democrat, but I have seen in Kentucky, the union, 
especially United Mine Workers and so many other unions that 
have been just devastated and put out of work by Democrat 
policies, starting with the Obama Administration. And now we 
see your union put out of work because of the Keystone 
pipeline. I mean, what is the general thinking now with the 
policy from the Democrat Party with respect to energy 
production in the United States?
    Mr. Crabtree. Well, I mean, it has always been my opinion 
that I don't care if you are a Democrat or Republican or 
Independent. I am going to vote for who is going to put me to 
work, and right now the President has decided to put us out of 
work, so of course I am not going to support him. I wish that 
President Trump could have won reelection, though. That is an 
honest statement.
    Mr. Comer. Well, I think a lot of people share your 
sentiment. My last question to you, sir. If the United States 
went totally green tomorrow, as some of my colleagues on the 
left dream about, and eliminated all oil and gas jobs, would 
Americans be able to power their homes or get their families to 
work or school?
    Mr. Crabtree. I think you know the answer to that question, 
Congressman.
    Mr. Comer. I know it, but I don't think my friends on the 
left here know it.
    Mr. Crabtree. I mean, there are so many things that are 
made from petroleum products. I just can't conceive living in a 
world where we are going to be carbon neutral or free.
    Mr. Comer. Thank you, sir. Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentlelady from Missouri, Ms. Bush, is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Ms. Bush. St. Louis and I thank you, Chairs Maloney and 
Khanna, for convening this timely hearing. Thanks in large part 
to those testifying today and the corporations they represent, 
St. Louis has 11 more 90-degree days per year than when I was 
born. Mr. Lawler, are the overwhelming majority of fossil fuel 
CEOs black or white?
    Mr. Lawler. I don't have the exact numbers, but I would 
assume they are white.
    Ms. Bush. Yes. Ms. Watkins, is an oil refinery more likely 
to be situated in a black community or white community?
    Ms. Watkins. I am not sure how to answer that honestly. We 
have got oil refineries along the U.S. Gulf Coast, and we are 
very proud to be community members there.
    Ms. Bush. It is black, yes. It is black. Mr. Wirth, are the 
impacts of climate change more likely to hit a black 
neighborhood or a white neighborhood first?
    Mr. Wirth. Congresswoman, I have not seen studies that 
would allow me to give you a----
    Ms. Bush. The answer is black. The facts are clear. A 2017 
NAACP and Clean Air Task Force report found that black 
Americans are 75 percent more likely to live next to company, 
industrial, and service facilities that directly harm us. For 
years, you all have continued to promote fossil fuels despite 
knowing that promoting them means promoting environmental 
racism and violence in black and brown communities. You all are 
still promoting and selling fossil fuels that are killing 
millions of people. This is a striking example of white 
supremacy. Your profit-driven choices threaten my life, the 
lives of my family, my neighbors, and our communities every 
single day. I sit before you as a black Congresswoman with 
asthma caused by fossil fuels and the tear gas you fund. I have 
a lot of questions, let me say.
    Mr. Woods, as CEO, are you responsible for what Exxon does? 
``Yes'' or ``no.'' It is just a ``yes'' or ``no.''
    Mr. Woods. For what ExxonMobil does? Yes, I am.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you. Thank you for that answer. It is not a 
coincidence that toxic waste is frequently dumped in black 
communities like mine. When toxic waste combines with fossil 
fuels flooding, the impact is unspeakable. My old basement in 
St. Louis County in a predominantly black neighborhood used to 
regularly fill with potentially radioactive waste next to my 
son's bedroom due to floods made more frequent and intense by 
your production and burning of fossil fuels. Public school 
playgrounds in St. Louis regularly flood with the radioactive 
water. Mr. Woods, would you send your children to one of these 
schools? ``Yes'' or ``no?''
    Mr. Woods. I am sorry. Could you repeat the question, 
please?
    Ms. Bush. Would you send your children to one of the 
schools with radioactive waste where we have this flooding----
    Mr. Woods. No.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you.
    Mr. Woods. I would not.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you. Thank you. And I don't want to either 
and neither does my community. It is not a coincidence that our 
communities are more likely to flood. You have known this 
flooding was coming for years. Ms. Watkins has, too. Ms. 
Watkins, in a 1988 Shell report, on page 26, it says, ``Large 
low-lying areas, like Bangladesh, may need to be abandoned.'' 
Ms. Watkins, does that bother you that your company deemed a 
country of 98 million brown people expendable in exchange for 
soaring profits? ``Yes'' or ``no?'' It is just a ``yes'' or a 
``no.''
    Ms. Watkins. Actually, Congresswoman, I am glad my company 
has been involved in the science research and involved in these 
discussions for decades, and we have been open and engaging 
with communities. And we are very active in the communities in 
which we operate and looking to make ourselves very much 
members of the community and invest in communities, especially 
where there is risk of climate change hitting harder than in 
other places.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you very much because it bothers me. Let me 
just say that. You didn't say it, but I will say it. It bothers 
me.
    Ms. Watkins. It bothers me, too.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you.
    Ms. Watkins. What bothers me is that----
    Ms. Bush. That the end of that question. I have to keep 
moving, but I have another question for you. Was Shell aware 
that black and indigenous communities in the U.S. will flood 
and burn first? ``Yes'' or ``no,'' black and indigenous 
communities.
    Ms. Watkins. I am sorry, Congresswoman. I am not familiar 
with what you are referencing.
    Ms. Bush. Let me ask you this. Are black communities like 
mine in St. Louis expendable to you?
    Ms. Watkins. Of course not. Communities are not expendable. 
We work everyday hand in hand with our communities. And, in 
fact, climate change is such a pressing issue that, as 
companies, we have to work with the communities, and with 
societies, and with the government if we are going to be able 
to get to net zero by 2050.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you. You know, your companies for decades 
have been misrepresenting information and redirecting attention 
to solutions you know to be false, and that is continuing even 
in this hearing, but I thank you for speaking up and saying 
what you said. We appreciate that, but we are at a tipping 
point. Developing fossil fuels now given the escalation of the 
climate crisis and its harm on black and brown communities is 
unconscionable. Given each of your roles in these attacks on 
our humanity, you all should resign.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentleman from California, the vice chair, Gomez, is 
recognized for five minutes. And after his questioning, there 
will be a five-minute quick break at the request of the 
witnesses. Mr. Gomez.
    Mr. Gomez. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to just continue 
a little bit on Ms. Bush's line of questioning. I was in the 
California State Legislature for about 4.5 years, and during 
that time we were able to pass reduction of greenhouse gas 
reduction goals. We were able to pass cap-and-trade and we were 
able to pass a lot of the bills that oil opposed, and you 
opposed it every step of the way. You believed that you were 
going to upend and get us to stop, and we were able to win 
those fights, and I get it. You guys have your own business 
model. That is what you are protecting. But we are fighting 
across the board for communities in California but also in the 
country, especially when the fact is the climate crisis 
disproportionately impacts communities of color. Those are the 
ones that are most likely to not get the jobs in the oil fields 
or most likely the ones not to see the direct benefits but also 
get the dirtier air, the dirtier water. They are ones that are 
always in the path of the destruction from the oil industry.
    So one of the things I want to really kind of focus in is, 
like I said, Cory Bush' questioning. Let's start with Mr. 
Wirth. Do you agree the impacts of climate change are worse for 
vulnerable communities or communities of color and low-income 
communities?
    Mr. Wirth. Well, Congressman, this is a very important 
issue I think for society, so I appreciate you----
    Mr. Gomez. Just a ``yes'' or ``no.'' I mean, do you agree 
that climate change is worse for low-income and communities of 
color?
    Mr. Wirth. Congressman, there are many different studies, 
opinions, and assertions on where and how climate change will 
manifest itself.
    Mr. Gomez. Mr. Wirth, I mean, listen, I know people that 
work for you and I respect them very well. Just simple. This 
was a fight that we fought in California. ``Yes'' or ``no.'' If 
you can't answer that, then there is really no reason to ask 
you the other questions. Do you believe climate change is worse 
for communities of color and low-income communities? ``Yes'' or 
``no?''
    Mr. Wirth. Congressman, I don't have the ability to answer 
that. I think the manifestation of climate change----
    Mr. Gomez. So I will take that as you are a ``no.'' OK. Mr. 
Wirth, Chevron's business code of conduct includes the 
following principle: ``protect people and the environment.'' So 
when Chevron states that the company has an ethical obligation 
to protect communities, does that include communities of color? 
``Yes or ``no.''
    Mr. Wirth. Congressman, absolutely. Chevron strives to be a 
force for good in the communities in which we operate, and we 
are committed to continually improving our environmental and 
social performance, especially in communities that are 
vulnerable.
    Mr. Gomez. Thank you, Mr. Wirth. Thank you. I am glad that 
you see that. Low-income communities and communities of color 
are on the front lines of coping with climate change and the 
legacy of fossil fuels. Mr. Wirth, do you believe Chevron has a 
moral obligation to prevent the negative health conditions and 
impacts and death caused by your products and the use of your 
products?
    Mr. Wirth. Congressman, I think we have an obligation for 
doing our part to respond to this great challenge that we have 
spent all day talking about.
    Mr. Gomez. Could you answer yes'' or ``no'' on my question?
    Mr. Wirth [continuing]. The future. I am sorry?
    Mr. Gomez. ``Yes'' or ``no.'' Just ``yes'' or ``no,'' do 
you see that also you have a moral obligation to prevent the 
negative health conditions and impacts caused on people by the 
use of your products?
    Mr. Wirth. Congressman, we have an obligation to support 
people in their livelihoods with affordable, reliable energy 
with good jobs, and doing our part----
    Mr. Gomez. Thank you.
    Mr. Wirth [continuing]. To reduce the carbon intensity of 
the energy system----
    Mr. Gomez. Thank you, Mr. Wirth. Ms. Watkins, I want to 
kind of go over to you. Shell has said that they have a goal of 
offsetting 120 million tons of CO2 by 2030. Is that correct?
    Ms. Watkins. We have a goal that we just announced today of 
reducing our Scope 1 and 2 emissions that we control by 2030.
    Mr. Gomez. OK. If Shell is committed to reducing its 
environmental impact, then why do you plan to appeal a recent 
court ruling in the Netherlands mandating Shell to reduce its 
emissions by 45 percent by 2030?
    Ms. Watkins. Yes, we are appealing that court ruling 
because we feel that that is not something that should be 
decided in the courts and we are actively looking at 
accelerating. We are accelerating our powering progress 
strategy as evidenced by the new target that we put out today, 
and we look forward to continuing to work with governments, 
like yourself, with society in order to accelerate the demand 
for cleaner----
    Mr. Gomez. Let me redirect the question. You mentioned 
Scope 1 and 2, but you leave out Scope 3, and Scope 3 emissions 
are 90 percent of your emissions. So how do you plan on 
reducing it by 120 tons by 2030 if you are not targeting 90 
percent of your emissions?
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired, but 
the gentlelady may answer his question.
    Ms. Watkins. Yes. So our Scope 1 and 2 emissions by half by 
2030. I don't know the exact tonnage of that. That number is 
not familiar to me. But what I can say around Scope 3, and you 
are right, the vast majority of the emissions are created from 
the use of the products that we sell. We will be net zero 
including Scope 3 by 2050 in step with society. That is our 
target for 2050. It includes Scope 3.
    Mr. Gomez. OK. Your press release says----
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Gomez. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. And I now am calling for a quick five-
minute recess. It is a request from the witnesses.
    We stand in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Chairwoman Maloney. The meeting will come to order.
    Without objection, Mr. Casten is authorized to participate 
in today's hearing.
    Mr. Casten, you are recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Casten. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our 
witnesses. I know it has been a long day. I want to just start 
by saying as a chemical engineer by training who spent a while 
as an engineer and then running some energy companies, I love 
chemical engineering. It is a lot of fun. I am sure you have a 
lot of fun with it. I always thought it was cool that you can 
look at the temperature and heat exchanger on one side and 
predict with amazing accuracy how the yield is going to change 
other side of your refinery, or a slight change in inputs 
changes the temperature. And I think it is no surprise that, 
you know, it is organizations like yours who employ a lot of 
smart people like that.
    You are actually pretty good at understanding how changes 
in chemistry affect temperature. And, in fact, James Black back 
in 1978, as you, of course, know, did this presentation to 
Exxon where he predicted that we would have a doubling in CO2 
based on current growth rates around 2025, and that would lead 
to a 1 to 3 degree increase in temperature, which is basically 
exactly where we are. So, Mr. Woods, kudos. You hire 
exceptionally talented people. You have trained them. That is 
one of the talents of a CEO. I commend you. We know that in the 
light of that information you denied.
    You founded the Global Climate Coalition. You funded Willie 
Soon's research that was contrary on climate science, and I 
don't want to go into that. You have had those conversations 
already. But I do want to talk about something that is in the 
news this week, which is that we have got all this information 
coming up that Facebook is phenomenally good at sowing 
disinformation. Not only can they not stop it, but they are 
actually really good at inflaming it. They can convince people 
that vaccines are bad. They can convince people to take horse 
medicine. They can even convince people that it is patriotic to 
attack the United States Capitol. Good people.
    So in light of that, in light of this amazing tool to 
spread disinformation, in light of the fact that you guys have 
actively worked to spread that disinformation, it is intriguing 
to me that in 2021, according to InfluenceMap, Exxon has spent 
$4 million on Facebook ads. Seventy-five percent of that money 
has been since June, and, in fact, your digital advertising 
spend was running $50,000 a week in March and got up to 
$600,000 a week in October. Mr. Woods, do you dispute those 
numbers about your advertising spend?
    Mr. Woods. I don't have those numbers available to me.
    Mr. Casten. Sound about right, though?
    Mr. Woods. I don't have a good view of those numbers today.
    Mr. Casten. Could you speculate on what might have been 
going on in the last month that would cause you to rapidly 
increase your spending on a platform that is designed to 
amplify disinformation?
    Mr. Woods. Well, Congressman, I would first make the point 
that I think differences of opinion are not disinformation. We 
have----
    Mr. Casten. Respectfully, sir, the laws of thermodynamics 
are not negotiable. We are not going there. I just want to 
know, do you know why you were amping up your spending on 
Facebook in the last few weeks by a factor of 12?
    Mr. Woods. I don't know what our spending in Facebook is, 
so it is hard for me to comment on what has changed.
    Mr. Casten. OK. Well, there is this Build Back Better Act 
going on it seems to be getting a lot of attention. It 
certainly seems dispositive. Mr. Sommers, that same analysis 
analyzed a little over 25,000 ads from the fossil fuel 
industry. They found that 20 percent of those were from 
American Petroleum Institute that were promoting natural gas as 
a climate solution. Now, again, I go back to my friends in the 
chemical engineering sector. Methane is about 84 times as 
potent a greenhouse gas chemical as carbon dioxide. When it is 
initially released, it lasts a little over a decade in the 
atmosphere and then breaks down. Over 100 years, it is about 30 
times as impactful. Over 20 years, which is kind of the time we 
have to get the zero, 84, which means there is somewhere 
between a 1 to 3 percent leakage rate in the system, and 
methane is actually worse than coal. And you all are out there 
promoting this as a part of the climate solution. Let's call it 
two percent just to be even.
    Mr. Sommers, do you dispute that methane is an 80 times 
more potent greenhouse gas than CO2?
    Mr. Sommers. Congressman, thank you for your question. 
Natural gas has led to----
    Mr. Casten. Sir, I am just asking for a ``yes'' or ``no.'' 
Do you dispute that it is 84 times as potent?
    Mr. Sommers. Congressman, this industry has done everything 
that we can do to limit methane emissions over time.
    Mr. Casten. I will get to the leaks. Do you dispute the 
science is my only question?
    Mr. Sommers. Congressman, we trust the climate science.
    Mr. Casten. OK. Good. Do you believe that the natural gas 
system today has less than two percent leaks from wellhead to 
burner tip?
    Mr. Sommers. Congressman, we don't dispute the science in 
this space. We are looking----
    Mr. Casten. How about the leakage rates? I get that we 
don't want to have leaks, but is it your position that there is 
less than two percent leaks from wellhead to burner tip?
    Mr. Sommers. Congressman, we have programs at the American 
Petroleum Institute to work to limit methane emissions.
    Mr. Casten. OK. But you are ducking the question, sir. If 
you don't have that, you have got to ask why you are calling 
something a climate solution that, as we sit today, is warming 
up the planet. I will leave you both with an observation. A 
former board member of mine, who is an idol of mine, used to 
tell us when we got in board disputes that the only thing that 
matters in this life is whether our grandchildren are proud of 
us. The West is on fire. Floods are coming. Ice is melting 
because of analysis you had in 1978. My question for all of 
you, which you can submit for the record, is, are your 
grandchildren proud of you?
    I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    Without objection, Mr. Jones is authorized to participate 
in today's hearing.
    Mr. Jones, you are recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Jones. Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, if you listen 
to our witnesses today or read their companies' climate plans, 
you might conclude that carbon capture is nothing short of a 
miracle, a technology solution so impactful that it will save 
us from the catastrophic effects of climate change. Exxon, for 
example, is promoting a proposed carbon capture and storage hub 
in Texas designed to capture emissions from industrial 
facilities and power plants, a way, at least according to 
Exxon's own ads and marketing materials, to have the best of 
both worlds: continue to burn fossil fuels with reckless 
abandon but pay none of the climate price.
    Mr. Woods, at an investor meeting earlier this year, you 
were quoted as saying, ``Carbon capture and storage is going to 
be needed to reduce emissions,'' and your written testimony 
reflects that sentiment as well. Today there are 13 active 
commercial carbon capture and storage sites in the U.S., 
according to the Global CCS Institute's 2020 report. One of 
those sites belongs to Exxon, correct? A simple yes'' or ``no'' 
will do.
    Mr. Woods. I am not familiar with that report, but we do 
have a facility in the U.S., yes.
    Mr. Jones. In Shute Creek, Ohio.
    Mr. Woods. Yes.
    Mr. Jones. Twelve of those sites, including the one Exxon 
owns, the captured carbon is used for what is called enhanced 
oil recovery, a method to combat hard-to-reach oil by injecting 
pressurized CO2. Is that correct? Again, a simple ``yes'' or 
``no'' will do, sir.
    Mr. Woods. Yes.
    Mr. Jones. In fact, 95 percent of the carbon being captured 
at these U.S. sites is used for extracting more oil. To be 
clear, Exxon and others are using captured CO2 to extract more 
oil and calling this a climate mitigation strategy. Mr. Woods, 
``yes'' or ``no,'' when Exxon promotes carbon capture as a 
climate solution, does this include carbon capture used for 
enhanced oil recovery?
    Mr. Woods. Congressman, I would say that you are confusing 
the technology with its uses. Carbon captures is a proven 
technology to concentrate CO2, and then the question is what 
you do with that concentration. We can store it. Our Houston 
hub is used to capture that CO2 and then store it in aquifers 
offshore. It would not be used for enhanced oil recovery. So 
there is a difference between the technology and then what you 
use the technology for.
    Mr. Jones. So, Mr. Woods, I am sorry, I do have other 
questions. I just want to get a ``yes'' or ``no'' answer. When 
Exxon promotes carbon capture as a climate solution, does this 
include carbon capture that is used for enhanced oil recovery? 
``Yes'' or ``no.''
    Mr. Woods. Our focus has been to capture CO2 and sequester 
it, not for EOR.
    Mr. Jones. OK. So even though the overwhelming majority of 
existing carbon capture technology deployed is ultimately used 
to extract even more fossil fuel, Exxon plans to increase 
investment in carbon capture as a way to ``be consistent with 
the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement.'' But the truth is 
carbon capture might help the fossil fuel companies extract 
more oil, but it won't do anything to prevent us all from 
paying the catastrophic costs of the climate crisis. To make 
enhanced oil recovery work from a climate perspective, Exxon, 
and to be fair, the rest of the fossil fuel industry as well, 
would need to capture and store and ever-increasing amount of 
carbon for which there is neither the technological capacity or 
infrastructure at scale to meet our 2030 or even 2050 
obligations in the Paris Climate Agreement. The U.S., as you 
know, is committed to reaching net zero emissions by 2050, but 
Exxon's carbon capture facility has only been able to capture 
and bury less than 20 percent of the carbon produced by the 
single plant on which it operates.
    Mr. Woods, how do you expect to capture enough of Exxon's 
future emissions from extraction transportation and other 
company operations to remain consistent with the country's net 
zero obligation?
    Mr. Woods. Congressman, that is the big challenge we all 
face, moving from one energy source to another. And it has been 
widely recognized in order for society to be successful, by the 
IPCC and the IEA, that carbon capture will play an important 
role in that. And the policy to support implementation of 
carbon capture will be important to achieve society's 
objectives. So no matter what solution we go to, there is going 
to be extensive need for additional investment in 
infrastructure as well as the technology to replace today's 
energy system. So it is not a question of spending more money. 
It is where you spend that money. And I would make the point 
that a number of solutions are required and a number of large 
investments in those solutions are required across our economy 
and across the world as a whole.
    Mr. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Woods. I understand that to mean 
that you don't know yet how you can capture enough future 
emissions from extraction transportation and other company 
operations to remain consistent with our country's net zero 
obligation.
    And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    Without objection, Mr. Levin is authorized to participate 
in today's hearing.
    Mr. Levin, you are now recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you so much, Madam Chairwoman, and thanks 
to all the witnesses. I want to shift our focus to the oil 
refinery workers your companies employ. Mr. Woods, I am going 
to ask you a few ``yes'' or ``no'' questions and then get into 
the issue in more detail. Does ExxonMobil educate workers on 
possible job loss from climate change, and have you advised 
workers that you believe addressing the climate crisis may 
cause some of them to lose their job?
    Mr. Woods. What we have talked about with our organization 
is the opportunity to address the risk of climate change 
through investments in technologies----
    Mr. Levin. Right, but I am asking about people's jobs, sir.
    Mr. Woods. Yes, and I will get to that. So----
    Mr. Levin. Well, I don't have a lot of time. So do you talk 
to them about that they may lose their jobs? ``Yes or ``no.'' 
Their current jobs.
    Mr. Woods. We believe that the transition will involve 
capabilities and skill sets that are consistent with our 
existing businesses, so there is an opportunity to evolve those 
jobs in two different applications, like carbon capture, like 
biofuel.
    Mr. Levin. Got it. So do you have specific programs in 
place to retain and protect the workers that you currently 
employ? Is that when you are kind of saying?
    Mr. Woods. No. What I am saying is as the world transitions 
and has the solutions that are going to be required, like 
hydrogen and biofuel and carbon captures, those investments 
will require workers to operate those facilities. And the 
skills of those workers are very----
    Mr. Levin. OK. I understand, sir. So would you say that, 
from your perspective, the company considers the well-being of 
your workers when you are making new business decisions?
    Mr. Woods. We believe that----
    Mr. Levin. It is a simple question, sir.
    Mr. Woods [continuing]. Our workers are fundamental to the 
value proposition of our company, so they are very important to 
the equation.
    Mr. Levin. OK. Well, I really have to question a lot of 
what you consider, how much you really consider them when you 
are making these decisions given reports coming out of the 
Beaumont Refinery. Can you confirm that on May 1, your company 
escorted 650 oil refiners in Beaumont, Texas, in the refinery 
there, off the job, replacing experienced members of United 
Steel Workers Local 13243 with temporary workers in an effort 
to force a vote on your latest contract proposal?
    Mr. Woods. At Beaumont, we have had contract negotiations 
ongoing for quite some time. We failed----
    Mr. Levin. Did you lock the workers out, sir, and replace 
them with temporary workers?
    Mr. Woods. We failed to reach an agreement, and as part of 
that process and a strike notice, we had a lockout. That is 
correct.
    Mr. Levin. Well, Madam Chairwoman, ExxonMobil states in its 
guiding principles for employees, ``We are committed to 
maintaining a safe work environment enriched by diversity and 
characterized by open communication, trust, and fair 
treatment.'' I fail to see how that is true based on today's 
hearing. ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel companies have sold 
this untrue narrative that they are acting out of concern for 
their workers while simultaneously undermining them as in the 
case with the lockout in Beaumont, Texas.
    We have evidence that their workers aren't their primary 
concern in their business decisions regarding climate change. 
As many have referenced earlier, former ExxonMobil senior 
adviser, Keith McCoy, was caught on camera defending 
ExxonMobil's early efforts to fight against climate science, 
stating that, ``There is s nothing illegal about doing that, 
and we are just looking out for our investments. We are looking 
out for our shareholders.'' He didn't mention the workers. And 
now when these companies can no longer hide from their climate 
denialism and disinformation, they work behind the scenes to 
shift climate liability away from profit margins and onto the 
backs of their workers by refusing to give them a seat at the 
table or to be clear about the long-term impacts that climate 
change has on their livelihoods.
    I am tired of oil industry-backed groups opposing efforts 
to address climate change in the name of protecting good jobs 
and workers. Let us remember it was not the CEOs and big bosses 
of these companies that made oil refinery jobs good jobs. It 
was unions and workers who fought for decades and are still 
fighting for these benefits. We can save life on earth as we 
know it and support our workers to have good jobs. I implore 
all the witnesses testifying today to give oil refinery workers 
a seat at the table, and I remain steadfast in my commitment to 
ensuring that workers are held harmless and supported in this 
transition while corporate polluters pay for the climate 
disinformation they have peddled for decades.
    With that, Madam Chairwoman, with 10 seconds to spare, I 
yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    Without objection, Ms. Omar is authorized to participate in 
today's hearing.
    Ms. Omar, you recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Omar. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I am glad to join 
this discussion. I know there has been a lot of conversations 
around the coordinated efforts that the fossil fuel companies 
have put together to create and spread disinformation about 
climate change.
    As we heard earlier, in 1998, the American Petroleum 
Institute, or API, assembled a global climate science 
communication team comprised of fossil fuel companies and front 
groups working to coordinate a misinformation campaign 
surrounding climate change. Mr. Wright, the Action Plan says 
Sharon Kneiss of Chevron was a member of the Global Climate 
Science Communication Team, correct?
    Mr. Wirth. Congresswoman, I appreciate the question. I am--
--
    Ms. Omar. It is just ``yes'' or ``no,'' sir.
    Mr. Wirth. I am not familiar with the instance you are 
referring to, so I don't have any knowledge of that.
    Ms. Omar. All right. Mr. Woods, the Action Plan also says 
Randy Randol of Exxon was a member of the team. Do you agree?
    Mr. Woods. I don't know about that. That was several 
decades ago and----
    Ms. Omar. OK. So on page two of the April 3, 1998, Action 
Plan, it says that these employees were listed as members who 
contributed to the development of the plan. In 1998, the Global 
Climate Science Communication Team produced an action plan 
outlining a strategy to conduct a coordinated misinformation 
campaign on climate change. Mr. Woods, an Exxon employee was 
involved in developing this action plan, right?
    Mr. Woods. As I said, I am not familiar with that activity. 
That was 20 years ago, and so I can't----
    Ms. Omar. OK. And, Mr. Wright, is that the same for you? Do 
you know that these employees were involved in creating this 
action plan?
    Mr. Wirth. I don't have information about the instance that 
you are making reference to, Congresswoman.
    Ms. Omar. OK. Again, on page two of that Action Plan lists 
these employees. The plan explained that, ``Victory'' would be 
achieved when ``average citizens understand uncertainties in 
climate science'' and recognition of that uncertainty ``becomes 
part of the conventional wisdom.'' We have heard today that 
Exxon executives were warned about the reality of the climate 
change as early as the 1970's. As we know, API shared 
information within the industry about the dangers of climate 
change. Yet both of your organizations contributed to a plan to 
inject an uncertainty into the climate debate. Mr. Sommers, 
``yes'' or ``no,'' did the Global Climate Science Communication 
Team achieve victory as it was laid out in that Action Plan?
    Mr. Sommers. Congresswoman, I am not familiar with what you 
are referring to. In 1998, I was 23 years old. I came to API in 
2018 and focused on the climate change.
    Ms. Omar. I study the history of the institution I 
participate in. I am sure you do as well. But it seems very 
clear that they did. The fossil fuel industry worked 
collectively to prevent action on climate change. They 
coordinated their campaigns with groups like the Global Climate 
Science Communication Team. Their efforts at disinformation 
were conscious and deliberate. Over the past three decades, the 
fossil fuel industry has continued their efforts by making $780 
million in political donations with 80 percent of those 
donations going to Republicans. In 2020 alone, the industry 
made $139 million in donations to candidates and committees, of 
which 84 percent went to Republicans and mostly climate 
deniers. It is yet another reason we need to get the fossil 
fuel money out of our politics.
    Fossil fuel companies have polluted our air, land, and 
water for profit despite knowing the devastating impact it has 
on our companies. It seems like you all have achieved that 
victory of leading the public with disinformation. And as one 
of my colleagues said earlier, I hope that you are ashamed of 
the future that you contributed to for your children and for 
ours. And I ask all of you to resign.
    With that, I yield back, Madam Chairwoman.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back.
    I am prepared to close now. All of our witnesses have had 
their time to ask their questions and the witnesses have 
responded, and I thank them for their time and their 
testimoneys. But before we close, I want to offer the ranking 
member an opportunity to offer any closing remarks he may have.
    Mr. Comer. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and I honestly 
sincerely think this was one of the better hearings that we 
have had today. The one thing that I think most Americans who 
watch this hearing would take from it is that the Biden energy 
policies have already had a dramatic impact on the inflationary 
prices that we have seen of gas and what we are going to see 
this winter with natural gas. So I think that was an important 
thing for the American people to see. This was a timely hearing 
because gas prices have risen 27 days in a row. Twenty-seven 
days in a row with no end in sight.
    You know, we have had a lot of interesting antics from my 
friends on the other side of the aisle. We have had a request 
to make a pledge to, of all things, cut production. When we are 
seeing gas prices soaring right now, the last thing in the 
world we need to do is cut production. We have seen them make 
try to get the CEOs to make a pledge to cut production at the 
same time Joe Biden is pleading with OPEC to increase 
production. It makes no sense. And we have had questions about 
how much lobbying the energy industry spent to lobby on behalf 
of the Paris Climate Accord. Of course they spent little to 
none on lobbying for that. The only countries that would have 
spent money lobbying for the Paris Climate Accords would have 
been energy companies in China or Ukraine. Perhaps when we 
become the majority and we subpoena Hunter Biden, we can ask 
Hunter Biden about that question.
    And then, you know, as our colleague, Representative Omar, 
just said, attacking the oil and gas industry for donating 80 
percent of their contributions to Republicans. The first thing 
that crossed my mind, Madam Chair, is I guess they feel like 
fools for donating 20 percent to the Democrats. I mean, this is 
crazy this policy that is only going to make energy prices 
higher, only going to make us more dependent on foreign 
countries for our energy and is going to do nothing to reduce 
carbon emissions. And finally, we have seen stunts like with 
Katie Porter. You know, it looked like she was in California. 
Madam Chair, I hope she doesn't get fined by Gavin Newsom for 
polluting or whatever she was doing there in the back of her 
car in California.
    But, you know, the most predictable thing that we have seen 
today is the trend with the Democrats attacking private sector 
companies for making a profit. And what always confuses me is 
why my friends on the left continue to attack companies for 
making a profit while at the same time wanting to increase the 
corporate tax. If corporations don't make a profit, it doesn't 
matter what the corporate tax rate is. So I think there are a 
lot of differing opinions that the American people have seen 
today from this hearing.
    I want to thank our witnesses who came here today. I want 
to thank you for the investment that you have made in creating 
good-paying jobs and doing your best to see that we are less 
dependent on foreign oil. I want to also thank you for your 
investments to reduce carbon emissions. The climate is very 
important to Republicans as well. We just want to work with the 
private sector to reduce our carbon footprint while at the same 
time reducing our dependence on foreign countries for energy, 
and, at the same time, create and maintain good-paying jobs. So 
that is a hallmark of the Republican policy. We care about the 
climate, but we also want to work with the private sector to 
reduce carbon emissions and continue to create good-paying 
jobs.
    With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    I want to thank all of the witnesses for appearing today 
and thank all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for 
their participation in this important hearing.
    I have been listening carefully to today's testimony. As I 
said earlier, I had hoped today would be a turning point for 
the oil industry. I was grateful to hear the top fossil fuel 
CEOs finally admit that climate change is real, that burning 
fossil fuels is causing it, and that we must act urgently to 
fix it. But I was disappointed that we also heard much of the 
same denial and deflection we have heard before. Today's 
witnesses refused to take responsibility for Big Oil's decades-
long disinformation campaign. And even after agreeing that we 
are, in fact, in ``Code Red'' crisis, they refuse to stop 
funding groups like the American Petroleum Institute that are 
still blocking reforms, like expanding the use of electric 
vehicles. So I see no choice but to continue our committee's 
investigation until we see the truth.
    We requested documents from each of these companies six 
weeks ago which were due on September 30. We followed up before 
the due date to identify categories of documents that were of 
particular importance to be produced quickly. After they missed 
the deadline, we sent warning letters to all six companies 
urging them to complete their productions by October 25 or face 
further action. Unfortunately, none of the six entities have 
produced a substantial portion of the key documents the 
committee requested. Instead they produced reams of other 
documents, many of which were publicly available. One entity 
sent in 1,500 pages printed from their own website, available 
publicly, along with 4,000 pages of newsletters filled with 
industry press releases. Others sent us thousands of pages of 
publicly available annual reports and the company's postings on 
Facebook and LinkedIn.
    Now, let me tell you what the fossil fuel companies have 
not produced. These organizations have not produced the 
detailed funding information that we requested and that we need 
to understand their payments to shadow groups and to 150 public 
relations companies, and advertisements on social media 
payments, payments that today's witnesses seem intent on 
continuing. Nearly all the companies have failed to turn over 
board materials the committee needs to examine corporate 
strategies on climate change. And with only a few limited 
exceptions, the fossil fuel companies have not produced any 
internal documents or internal communications from senior 
executives about their company's role in climate change. I have 
tried very hard to obtain this information voluntarily, but the 
oil companies employed the same tactics they use for decades on 
climate policy: delay and obstruction. Well, that ends today.
    I am formally notifying the ranking member and members of 
the committee that I intend to issue subpoenas to the fossil 
fuel entities represented here today. I have draft subpoenas 
here. Please know that I do not take this step lightly. When 
Republican Dan Burton was chairman of this committee, he issued 
more than 1,000 subpoenas without a single complaint from my 
Republican colleagues. I have been much more selective, but we 
are at Code Red for climate, and I am committed to doing 
everything I can to help rescue this planet and save it for our 
children. We need to get to the bottom of the oil industry's 
disinformation campaign, and with these subpoenas we will.
    Mr. Comer. Madam Chair, point of order. Point of order.
    Chairwoman Maloney. What is the gentleman's point of order?
    Mr. Comer. I just want to publicly say I object to the 
issuance of subpoenas. The oil and gas executives here today 
have provided over 100,000 pages of documents, and we feel like 
that is an infringement upon their First Amendment rights.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Well, Mr. Chairman, they produced 
documents, but they were not the documents that we requested. 
Most of it was like this, completely publicly available on 
their website, their annual reports. And as you know, Chairman 
Khanna and I wrote you a letter yesterday highlighting our 
serious concerns that the fossil fuel organizations were not 
fully compliant with our request and were obstructing and 
delaying our investigation. I also noted that we gave these 
organizations multiple opportunities to produce them 
voluntarily. We requested it in writing and phone calls and 
reaching out to their offices. In fact, Chairman Rho Khanna and 
I wrote to them just last week and warned them if they did not 
comply voluntarily, that the committee would be forced to 
consider additional steps to obtain compliance.
    So we have been true to our word, and we spent a great deal 
of time trying to obtain these documents. We were not able to 
obtain them. They are important. We are now requesting them 
with a subpoena. I have draft subpoenas here. I am willing to 
share them if you would like them.
    Mr. Comer. Madam Chair, we strongly reiterate the fact that 
we feel this is an infringement upon their First Amendment 
rights. This is the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. 
We are supposed to focus on waste, fraud, and abuse in the 
Federal bureaucracy.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Great. The meeting is adjourned.
    Before we close, in closing, I want to thank our panelists 
once again for their remarks, and I want to commend my 
colleagues for participating in this very important 
conversation.
    With that and without objection, all members will have five 
legislative days within which to submit extraneous materials 
and to submit additional written questions for the witnesses to 
the chair, which will be forwarded to the witnesses for their 
response. I ask our witnesses to please respond as promptly as 
you can. And with that, this meeting is adjourned.
    Chairwoman Maloney. And with that, this meeting is 
adjourned.

                                 [all]