[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 81 (Wednesday, May 10, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2853-S2859]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                  Congressional Review Act Resolution

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to speak against the 
Congressional Review Act resolution to overrun an important rule that 
has been put in place to protect the American taxpayer and to protect 
the health of American citizens.
  For almost 100 years, the Federal Government has regulated undue 
waste in oil and gas fields. The story of oil and gas waste is as old 
as the story of oil and gas.
  Early oil gushers, like Spindletop in Texas, revealed two things 
about oil as an emerging source of energy: First, there was a huge 
amount of it. Second, without rules in place, it could be easily 
wasted. That is why, way back in 1915, Attorney General Thomas Gregory 
issued a report to the public about this issue. Gregory wrote that the 
law at the time allowed oil companies to ``occupy and operate any 
number of tracts of public oil land without restraint upon the 
quantities of oil produced or the methods of production and

[[Page S2854]]

without rendering to the . . . government anything in return.'' One can 
imagine that concern. Gregory went on to point out that ``the 
incentives to speculative occupation, negligent and wasteful operation, 
and excess production become obvious.''
  Some of my colleagues who are not on the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee may not be familiar with the law Congress passed after 
Attorney General Gregory put his finger on the waste problem. The 
Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 established our modern leasing program for 
oil and natural gas. More than anything else, the leasing act enshrined 
the principle that the public should benefit from mineral production on 
public lands. This seems like a no-brainer today, but it took over a 
decade of debate to pass the leasing act.
  One of the main parts of the leasing act was a requirement to avoid 
wasting oil and gas. There are many environmental reasons to avoid 
wasting this resource, but let's be clear: It was dollar signs that led 
to the waste provision. Overproduction would glut the market and damage 
the oil reserves, and wasted oil provided no return to the owners--the 
taxpayers.
  The leasing act is still the law, and the law says that oil and gas 
operators must ``use all reasonable precautions to prevent waste of oil 
or gas developed in the land.'' The law says that Federal leases must 
include ``a provision that such rules . . . for the prevention of undue 
waste as may be prescribed by [the] Secretary shall be observed.'' The 
BLM's methane rule is entirely in keeping with that history. The rule 
says that the outdated 1979 version of this rule needed to be updated.
  The rule was put in place before the fracking took place that 
revolutionized the industry, before the shale plays opened, and before 
infrared imaging became commonplace. What has not changed since 1920 is 
that oil and gas companies cannot waste public resources on public 
lands.
  When equipment is leaky or old, oil and gas producers vent natural 
gas directly to the sky. If they do capture the gas but have nowhere to 
send it, the gas just gets burned on site. This venting and flaring 
causes a big problem. This photograph shows that actual problem 
happening.
  I am sure there are many citizens across the United States who have 
witnessed this and have been concerned about what pollutants might be 
entering the atmosphere. The hazardous health impacts of this are 
tremendous--benzene, which causes cancer--and I will talk more about 
that in a minute.
  The amount of venting that is happening is enough gas to supply 6.2 
million American households for a year. According to more recent 
research, even higher estimates are coming in. That is enough gas to 
supply every home in the interior West--Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, 
Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico--with gas left over for the 
Dakotas. Every home. The amount of gas we waste every single year on 
Federal lands would be enough to supply Tennessee forever, and there 
could be some left over for West Virginia.
  On Federal lands, operators have more than doubled how much gas they 
have flared and wasted between 2009 and today, and that is the practice 
we are trying to stop. Under the old 1979 rule, operators had to apply 
to BLM every time they wanted to vent or flare. In practice, BLM, 
because they did not have a new rule in place, basically just had a 
``yes'' or ``no'' answer. In 2014, the Bureau of Land Management 
received 25 times more applications to vent or flare than in 2005.
  What was happening was that we as a Federal Government were failing 
in our responding and updating the act to make sure producers were 
living up to the intent of that earlier law, so government watchdogs 
got on the issue and started calling for a solution.
  The Government Accountability Office and the Interior Department's 
inspector general concluded that the Bureau of Land Management needed 
to change these rules. The Government Accountability Office concluded 
in 2010 that about 40 percent of wasted natural gas on Federal leases 
could be economically captured with existing technology.

  Some States had already taken action into their own hands. In 
Colorado, the State passed a strong venting and leak detection 
regulation, which really became the model for the national Bureau of 
Land Management, and oil and gas production has since increased.
  There was a notion that in making sure that waste was not 
promulgated--that it somehow was going to slow down the industry, but 
it has been just the opposite. In fact, some of my colleagues and some 
ranchers and others in these areas have talked about how the United 
States should lead the way on new technology to stop the leakage and to 
prevent these flarings as a way for the industry to show technology 
leadership.
  Also, in North Dakota, a Republican administration passed flaring 
restrictions after years of there being uncontrolled flaring in the 
Bakken. States took action, and various watchdog groups and 
investigators here in Washington said the Bureau of Land Management 
needed to act. The BLM finally acted, and its final rule is similar to 
the North Dakota approach. So States have already been leaders on this 
methane issue. But this patchwork of State rules is not what we need; 
we need a Federal baseline.
  It is bad enough that wasted natural gas will never have an economic 
use. Making the issue worse is that every cubic foot that is vented or 
flared is another cubic foot we have to produce somewhere else. What 
does that mean for our wallets? Research by ICF International shows 
that $330 million of natural gas is wasted intentionally on Federal 
lands every year. Over time, the public is losing billions of dollars. 
Over a decade, the lost royalties that have been calculated by the 
Government Accountability Office on wasted gas will add up to $230 
million. While the final amount, of course, depends on the price of 
natural gas, we cannot afford to give up this revenue.
  A vote for disapproving the resolution will let the oil and gas 
industry roll back the clock to 1979. This resolution lets people 
continue avoiding giving the taxpayers their fair share. It is another 
example of special interests trumping the public interest.
  Even worse than the taxpayer issue, though, is that wasted natural 
gas harms public health. That is why those States took action. One of 
the most prevailing problems on this issue is in the Four Corners 
States, and my colleague from New Mexico will be talking about this 
shortly.
  When one looks at the entire United States on a map that shows the 
amount of waste of flaring, one can see all of this yellow coloring in 
the Midwest--in Ohio--and in other States, but one can see the hotspot 
in the Four Corners area. The Four Corners States have tried to take 
action--places like Colorado and New Mexico, with, obviously, Arizona 
and Utah being affected--because wasted natural gas basically releases 
a volatile organic compound. It creates ozone and smog. It also can 
make people sick. This pollution worsens asthma, emphysema, and 
increases the risk of premature death. It releases toxins, like 
benzene, that cause cancer. And the methane, the main constituent of 
the natural gas, is 25 times more powerful at trapping heat than carbon 
dioxide.
  That is why a recent analysis by the Clean Air Task Force found that 
over 9 million people are exposed to these dangerous levels of air 
pollution from oil and gas production. That is why my colleague Senator 
Bennet of Colorado has been such an outspoken advocate of keeping this 
rule in place. It is because that corner of Colorado has faced so many 
impacts that they want to make sure their citizens are protected.
  With the rolling back of this Federal rule, basically what one would 
be saying is that it is OK to continue this level of pollution--an 
anathema to what the people of Colorado have been asking for.
  Oil and gas pollution can make rural areas seem like the middle of a 
city. A few years ago, NASA scientists discovered a massive cloud of 
methane over the Four Corners region. This is the highest concentration 
of methane in the Nation. After aerial surveys, NASA found that over 
half of the methane is from natural gas equipment, including tanks, 
wells, pipelines, and processing plants. The ozone pollution in the 
Four Corners is almost as bad on some days as in the city of Los 
Angeles--a city with 300 times as many people.

[[Page S2855]]

  As bad as methane waste is on Federal land, this rule only targets 10 
percent of that wasted by the oil and gas industry because we are 
targeting Federal land. It only affects a small minority of the oil and 
gas production. Ninety-five percent of that production is in other 
areas. But this rule is important to put in place because we cannot 
ignore the impacts on pollution, and we cannot ignore the costs to our 
Federal lands.
  The Bureau of Land Management compared the costs and benefits of this 
rule without factoring in the reductions in ozone, particulate matter, 
or smog, and the BLM ignored the value of reducing carcinogens. We know 
that this particular conservative analysis shows a net benefit of 
between $46 million and $204 million each year. This makes economic 
sense to implement.
  Under the very obsolete 1979 regulation that the methane rule 
replaces, oil and gas operators had to apply to the BLM whenever they 
wanted to vent or flare natural gas. The old rules also had no specific 
equipment requirements in place.
  As I said earlier, the world has changed dramatically since 1979 when 
it comes to oil and gas production. The new rule takes commonsense 
approaches to stepping up our attempts to reduce this waste and 
prohibit the venting, except in emergencies and in some circumstances. 
They estimate that it will cut the venting by 35 percent. It also sets 
capture targets for flaring, allowing operators flexibility on how to 
meet those targets. The BLM estimates they will reduce flaring by 49 
percent.
  The rule requires operators to inspect their wells and their 
equipment. People may have heard unbelievable stories from California 
about a huge methane leakage that caused unbelievable amounts of 
damage. We know that we want the best equipment, that we want the best 
detection, and that we want a strong rule in place to stop wasting this 
natural gas, give the taxpayers a fair deal, and protect the American 
people from harmful levels of pollution. That is why we want this rule 
to stay in place.
  With America's increased natural gas production, now is not the time 
to take a very solid rule off the books--a rule that protects the 
American people. The technology to conduct these inspections already 
exists. Infrared imaging and other technology has been sold 
commercially for decades. What we are really saying is that people just 
do not want to spend the money to implement them.
  Fourth, the rule requires operators to replace leaky equipment, like 
the pneumatic controllers and pumps, and it is trying to make sure that 
we eliminate the methane waste.
  So the final rule is in step with what the Government Accountability 
Office told us 7 years ago--that about 40 percent of the waste can be 
captured economically. BLM took those best practices and State 
examples, as I mentioned, including North Dakota and Colorado, and 
implemented a new rule.
  It includes Colorado's venting and inspection and retrofitting 
requirements, and regulation 7. It includes North Dakota's capture 
targets for flared gas in it, and it includes Wyoming's venting and 
inspection requirements in the Upper Green River Basin.
  Not only did the Bureau of Land Management adopt the best practices 
of States, but it also included a variance provision in the final rule. 
Any State or Tribe with equally effective regulation in place can 
minimize their methane waste and can apply for a variance from the 
Department of the Interior. There is a lot of flexibility there, I 
would say, for States that are trying to lead the way. But based on 
this careful approach, the final rule and its benefits are estimated, 
as I said earlier, to be $204 million a year.
  So the public in these States that are most affected certainly want 
this rule. As more Americans understand the level of natural gas 
production and the wasteful venting that continues to take place, they 
want this rule in place as well.
  Passing the resolution just after a few hours of debate and trying to 
undermine this rule would go against the 330,000 public comments that 
were collected during the process of establishing this rule. So we 
certainly don't want to overturn what was a very long and elaborate 
process to put this very important rule in place.
  Proposing more waste is not going to solve our economic challenges. 
Proposing more pollution is not a solution. We know that in the most 
recent annual poll by Colorado College, western voters said that 81 
percent of them supported making sure that the Bureau of Land 
Management had strong methane rules. My colleagues appear not to 
understand how much the public wants to get this implemented. I hope my 
colleagues will continue to support the effort to turn down the 
Congressional Review Act resolution and instead keep this very, very 
important public health and economic taxpayer solution on the books.
  As Mark Boling, an executive with Southwestern Energy, a major 
natural gas producer, said, this resolution and trying to turn back the 
rule is ``a huge mistake.'' He pointed out that it could have 
``unintended consequences for oil and gas technology.''
  So I want to make sure this rule stays in place. Let's keep a strong 
rule on the books, as I said, for the health of the American people and 
to make sure that taxpayers get a fair deal with these companies that 
are producing on Federal lands.
  I thank the Chair.
  I yield to my colleague from New Mexico, who has been outspoken on 
this issue in making sure that Congress addresses the flaring and 
leakage of natural gas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Young). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, if I sound a little hoarse, it is because 
my allergies are acting up, but I feel just fine.
  Let me start out by thanking Senator Cantwell. Her leadership on the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee is pretty incredible.
  For this Congress, I think this is the very first CRA that has been 
turned down. We have been voting on many of them since the Congress 
came back in session in January. This is the very first victory we have 
had on denying the CRA.
  When we talk about what a CRA does, it is a very blunt instrument 
that has only been used once until this Congress, and what it does is 
just blow out an entire area of the law. So if you talk about this BLM 
methane rule and you have a part of the law that says the government 
shall try to prevent waste, well, if you blow that provision of the law 
out, the agency can do nothing until we get to the point that the 
Congress acts again, and sometimes we move very slowly.
  So I really appreciate the leadership of Senator Cantwell, and I want 
to thank her so much and all of the members of her committee, in 
particular, Senator Heinrich. Senator Heinrich serves on that committee 
and has been very outspoken on this rule, and I believe his leadership 
has always been acknowledged by Senator Cantwell as well.
  This issue that we are debating and that we had this good vote on is 
about three things. First of all, it is about the waste of a natural 
resource that the public and the Tribes own. Let's talk about the 
resource here for a second. We are talking about, to start with, 
natural gas. So when we think of natural gas, as many people know, what 
we are talking about is when you turn on your stove, and it is a 
natural gas stove, that is how we cook our food. Many houses run and 
heat on natural gas, and we know now that many of our powerplants are 
converting over to natural gas because it is a very good fuel in terms 
of lowering carbon emissions. So natural gas is a big part of our 
energy economy. It is actually going up as coal is going down.
  Look at this photograph which shows more than $330 million of natural 
gas wasted. This just shows us the huge power of natural gas. What was 
happening is that natural gas was being flared. This depicts the top at 
one of these oil and gas operations. They are just burning that up. So 
rather than that energy being used at home or used in industry, it is 
just being wasted. On top of that, we know it has a massive climate 
impact.
  This was a very commonsense rule. I think the thing people should 
understand is that several Western States, including Colorado and 
Wyoming, passed an almost identical rule to deal with this issue. All 
BLM tried to do was to use that common sense from the West, where it 
had already happened in several States, and put it in place for

[[Page S2856]]

the Nation. So this is a good, solid rule, and it is a commonsense 
rule, and I think it prevents waste, just like it was laid out to do.
  The second point is that when we talk about this issue, it is about 
job creation. What we are talking about here is, when you have this 
kind of waste, how do you prevent the waste? Well, the thing we have 
seen in New Mexico that occurs is that many of these oil and gas 
industries reach out to people who maybe haven't been in business, and 
they say: How do we prevent this waste? Well, actually, we use infrared 
to focus on the oil and gas operations and all of their pipes, and we 
can detect the natural gas waste, and then we can go about actually 
fixing it at all the various fittings and places where that happens. 
Guess what. A lot of jobs are created in that process. This is growing 
in New Mexico, growing in Colorado, and with this rule in place, over 
time, it is going to continue to grow. So this is going to create some 
small businesses. It has already created small businesses, and it is 
going to be pretty dramatic on that front.
  The third thing that we are here about has to do with public health. 
Obviously, if you are venting all of this--and as Senator Cantwell 
showed, you have a methane cloud the size of Delaware over the Four 
Corners area; so it is really impacting New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and 
Arizona--what is the impact in terms of methane? Well, we know there 
are serious public health impacts. We know that asthma is impacted by 
this, as well as other respiratory diseases--the kinds of things that 
occur on a regular basis as we have that kind of methane pollution that 
goes into the air. As I mentioned just a little bit earlier, methane is 
a very, very powerful and potent greenhouse gas. So we know that by 
releasing it--the flaring that we talked about--we are wasting it and 
we are putting that methane into the atmosphere. We are also adding to 
the greenhouse gases, which are warming the planet and creating, in the 
Southwest, as we know, catastrophic forest fires, extreme weather 
events, impacts on water, and impacts on agriculture. So we know that 
it is here now and that the Western States are in the bull's-eye.
  So let me just say that these are three commonsense things that we 
have done today by asserting this rule. We are preventing waste, we are 
moving job creation, and we are acting on the part of public health.
  When we have a victory like this, there are just so many people that 
should be congratulated--people that pulled together. First of all, 
just to start, Senator Cantwell just finished, and she is our ranking 
member on the committee. Senator Bennet, I think, was actually the 
51st, and I hope he tweeted that out. When he came over, we were at 50, 
and it went to 51. So he and all of the Democrats hung together on 
this--every single one of the Democrats. It just shows that when we get 
Democratic unity--and with our Independents--we come right up on about 
48 votes. If we get a couple of Republicans--if we work in a bipartisan 
way--to come with us, we can have a big impact. Who are the Republicans 
who voted with us? They should be called out and congratulated for 
having courage, for having common sense, and for stepping forward. I 
would just like to say about my three friends on the Republican side--
Senator McCain, Senator Collins, and Senator Graham--thank you so much 
for stepping forward and seeing the commonsense nature of this issue 
and standing to make sure that we didn't head in the wrong direction on 
this.
  Thinking a little bit about some of the groups that voted with us and 
worked with us and helped us and advised us out in the field, the 
groups that stood with us shoulder to shoulder include the 
Environmental Defense Fund, the Wilderness Society, and the Ceres 
business group. We had a lot of businesses--understanding that this is 
a business issue and a job creator--like Taxpayers for Common Sense. We 
don't always see them weigh in on regulations like this. The Center for 
Methane Emissions Solutions, and so many environmental and public 
health groups, including Earth Justice, the National Parks Association, 
the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, and many, many 
others, including the Western Environmental Law Center, are also a part 
of that.
  I thought we should talk for a second about--in addition to all of 
those groups--some other groups that joined us, and they are these 
medical and public health groups that abhor natural gas waste. Look at 
all of these groups in addition to the ones I mentioned. These are 
people who have real expertise in public health: Allergy & Asthma 
Network, American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, 
Center for Climate Change and Health, and Physicians for Social 
Responsibility. I have always been impressed by that group. Here you 
have docs who are stepping up, wanting to be socially responsible on 
things. There are many wonderful physicians like that in New Mexico and 
across the Nation, and they have organized themselves as PSR. We also 
have the Public Health Institute and the National Medical Association.
  So we have a lot of these medical and public health groups that have 
stepped forward and said: We are not going to waste natural gas. Let me 
thank them.
  Also, the Western Environmental Law Center, which is in New Mexico 
and works on this issue, has been a pretty incredible group, hard-
working, headed up by a gentleman by the name of Doug Meiklejohn, and 
Doug really makes a difference on all of these issues in New Mexico 
and, in particular, really helped us out here.
  I would be remiss if I didn't mention some of the groups that have 
pulled together--groups of ranchers, Tribes, and public health groups. 
We just talked about the public health groups. But there is one rancher 
in New Mexico whose sole focus has been this issue. His name is Don 
Schreiber. He appeared at a press conference yesterday here in 
Washington with Senator Bennet and Senator Cantwell. I was at my own 
press conference, and more or less as a Senator there, speaking out on 
methane. I know if Don is ever at a press conference, he is going to 
say what I would have said on this methane issue, which is that we have 
to prevent waste. Don Schreiber is his name. He is a rancher from 
Northwestern New Mexico. He is actually up under that methane cloud, 
and he talks about his family and his ranching operation and what the 
impact is.

  We also have Tribes in that area. I want to congratulate and thank 
President Begaye of the Navajo Nation. He sent in a very persuasive 
statement and made a very strong statement against wasting natural gas.
  We also had the Western Organization of Resource Councils. This is 
another group that has been very active in the West. They stepped 
forward on this natural gas waste issue, and we are incredibly thankful 
to them.
  Also, we never get anything done around here on the Senate floor 
without our wonderful staff. I want to thank Jonathan Black, who has 
worked on this issue for many years. Jonathan actually worked for 
Senator Bingaman on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, so he 
brought a lot of that expertise. We have a young man from the office 
sitting here with me on the floor, Sean MacDougall, helping me with 
these charts. Sean is a congressional fellow in our office on loan from 
the Bureau of Land Management, and he has brought a lot of knowledge to 
the table.
  Mr. President, to reiterate, I oppose H.J. Res. 36--the Congressional 
Review Act resolution to disapprove the Bureau of Land Management's 
methane and waste prevention rule. BLM's rule prevents the unnecessary 
waste of a public resource and makes sure New Mexicans--and all 
American taxpayers--get fair value in return for commercial use of that 
public resource.
  The rule requires oil and gas facilities operating on public and 
Indian lands to prevent unnecessary flaring, venting, and leaking of 
methane. Rigorous analysis shows that the overall benefits to the 
American public far outweigh the costs, and technology to implement the 
rule is readily available and cost-effective to industry.
  The current BLM rules on natural gas waste are over 35 years old, 
issued in 1979. Federal watchdog agencies have been issuing reports for 
almost a decade--recommending that the BLM update its rules and prevent 
waste wherever possible.
  With new technologies like horizontal drilling, the amount of gas 
wasted in recent years has increased significantly. From 2009 to 2013, 
the total

[[Page S2857]]

amount of natural gas flared on BLM land doubled.
  We throw the phrase ``common sense'' around a lot these days when we 
talk about laws or regulations we like, but the BLM's waste prevention 
rule really is a commonsense rule.
  Over the past 4 months, Congress has repealed 13 Federal rules using 
CRA authority. These regulations involved years of work by the agencies 
and were developed transparently through the public notice and comment 
process. Congress overturned these rules without public input, 
hearings, or debate.
  I understand repeal of ``burdensome'' Federal regulations is a strong 
rallying cry, and I wholeheartedly agree that Federal regulations 
should not be overly burdensome.
  The BLM's waste prevention rule is good for the American public, and 
the cost to industry is de minimus. In fact, there is benefit to 
industry from increased production and the resulting increase in 
revenues. The BLM's rule is one rule that should not get swept up in 
the political tide of CRA repeal.
  Congress has spoken loud and clear that the BLM has an obligation to 
prevent waste of oil and gas on public and tribal lands starting with 
the 1920 Mineral Leasing Act.
  That act--governing leases on BLM lands--requires every lease to 
contain provisions for ``the prevention of undue waste. . . .''
  Federal law obligates the BLM to make sure the public gets a fair 
return from profits generated by oil and gas leases on public lands. 
The 1976 Federal Lands Policy and Management Act requires that ``the 
United States receive fair market value of the use of the public lands 
and their resources. . . .''
  The 1982 Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act obligates these 
same oil and gas companies to pay the Federal Government ``royalty 
payments on oil or gas lost or wasted.''
  Congress has determined that oil and gas companies extracting 
resources on public lands can't waste the resource, and, if they do, 
they must pay fair market value to the American public.
  Despite Congress's prohibition against waste, tremendous volumes of 
oil and gas under BLM lease are wasted each year through flaring, 
venting, and leaks.
  Operators do not always use best practices when they flare and vent. 
Some even abuse the practice. As a result, operators vent and flare 
significant amounts of oil and gas that are economically recoverable.
  Natural gas is colorless and odorless, so you can't see leaks with 
the naked eye. Operators do not always use best practices to detect and 
prevent leaks either, but we now have readily available technology, 
like infrared cameras, that quickly and easily identify leaks. We don't 
let leaky pipes in our homes go unattended. For-profit companies 
shouldn't be given a free pass to let gas leak on public lands.
  Oil and gas operators under BLM leases reported flaring and venting 
462 billion cubic feet of natural gas from 2009 through 2015. That is 
enough gas to supply over 6.2 million households for one year. That is 
every household in the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Montana, North 
Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.
  An independent study by ICF International estimates that, in 2013 
alone, 65 billion cubic feet of gas was wasted. That includes over 18 
billion cubic feet from tribal lands, with an estimated loss to the 
American public of $27 million in royalties.
  The amount of oil and gas waste is rising dramatically. Oil and gas 
operators report flaring has increased over 1,000 percent between 2009 
and 2015. The number of applications to vent or flare royalty free has 
gone from 50 in 2005 to 622 in 2011 to 1,246 in 2014.
  The BLM's outdated rules and the loss of royalties caught the 
attention of the Government Accountability Office years ago.
  A 2010 GAO report estimated that approximately 128 billion cubic feet 
of natural gas was vented or flared from Federal leases in 2008 and 
that approximately 50 billion cubic feet was economically recoverable. 
That recoverable gas represented $23 million in lost royalties in 1 
year.
  The 2010 GAO report highlighted real world experiences, where 
operators made money by putting in technologies to recover gas instead 
of venting or flaring. One large producer in the San Juan Basin 
installed equipment that reduced venting by 99 percent. That same 
company reported increased revenues of $5.8 million, from a $1.2 
million investment in technology to reduce emissions during well 
completion. That is money well spent.
  The San Juan Basin is one of the oldest and most productive gas-
producing areas in the United States. It lies in the Four Corners area, 
where my home State of New Mexico touches Arizona, Colorado, and Utah.
  That area is home to a methane ``hot spot,'' with the highest 
concentration of methane in the Nation.
  In 2010, the GAO pointed out what was obvious, that the BLM's 
decades-old guidance did not take account of current technology to 
reduce venting and flaring. The GAO recommended that the BLM update its 
regulations to address the avoidable loss of gas on public lands.
  There are other GAO reports, but I will talk about one more.
  In 2016, the GAO issued a report entitled, ``Interior Could Do More 
to Account for and Manage Natural Gas Emissions.'' It detailed the 
BLM's highly inconsistent practices approving royalty-free venting and 
flaring incidents.
  Looking at a random sample of operator requests to vent or flare from 
fiscal year 2014, the GAO found that fully 90 percent had inadequate 
documentation, but, despite the bad documentation, the BLM approved 70 
percent of the requests, almost half of which were for royalty-free 
venting or flaring. That is a lot of Federal, State, and tribal 
royalties lost based on incomplete records.
  The GAO is charged with helping Congress make sure Federal agencies 
are doing the best job they can for the American public. We should not 
disregard repeated GAO recommendations--spanning almost a decade--for 
the BLM to modernize its oil and gas royalty program.
  If we pass this disapproval, the BLM is foreclosed from updating 
these rules. In the face of the GAO report after another telling us 
that the BLM must do better, that would be just irresponsible to 
taxpayers.
  Secretary Zinke has been charged to review the BLM rule as part of 
the President's ``Energy Independence'' Executive order. If, after 
review, the Secretary concludes that the BLM rule should be modified, 
the Department of the Interior can proceed to amend the rule through 
the public rulemaking process, but, when we have been told time and 
time again that there is unnecessary waste and the BLM rules need 
updating, Congress should allow the DOI review to go forward and not 
permanently prevent DOI from considering how to prevent unnecessary 
waste by oil and gas facilities.
  Let's not forget that half the royalties from Federal leases go to 
State treasuries. States use these royalties for schools, roads, and 
infrastructure projects.
  My home State of New Mexico has the second highest number of acres 
under BLM lease in the country, after Wyoming--over 4.6 million acres--
and the second highest number of BLM oil and gas leases--over 8,000.
  New Mexico has a lot at stake in the BLM's waste prevention rule.
  ICF International estimates that the natural gas in New Mexico that 
could have been captured and marketed under the BLM's rule between 2009 
and 2013 would have been worth more than $100 million a year and would 
have produced $43 million in royalty payments for our State.
  In New Mexico, those royalty payments are used in part for 
educational materials in the public schools. That is textbooks, digital 
materials, science supplies, art supplies, and accessible materials for 
students with disabilities. That $43 million would have gone a long way 
for New Mexico schoolkids.
  Many of you may be aware of the methane ``hot spot'' over the Four 
Corners area that I talked about earlier. The hot spot covers about 
2,500 square miles--the size of the State of Delaware.
  This single cloud comprises nearly 10 percent of all methane 
emissions from natural gas in the United States. The San Juan Basin is 
ranked No. 1 in per capita methane pollution in the U.S.
  Scientists have been researching the sources of this methane plume. 
When the hot spot was discovered, oil and gas companies claimed the 
high concentrations were caused by ``natural''

[[Page S2858]]

sources, but researchers have found out this is wrong. They have 
identified 250 sources--the majority of which are oil and gas 
operations and include gas wells, storage tanks, pipelines, and 
processing plants.
  Of the four States, only Colorado has robust rules to prevent methane 
emissions. Colorado's rules are proving successful, and the BLM 
incorporated provisions from those rules.
  It is important for my State that the BLM's waste prevention rule 
stay on the books. We don't need that methane hot spot in our backyard 
and New Mexico sorely needs the royalty payments owed.
  The BLM's rule is also important for tribes. As vice-chair of the 
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, I work to make sure the Federal 
Government upholds all its trust responsibilities. One of those 
responsibilities is making sure tribes get the royalties they are 
entitled to from private oil and gas companies operating on Indian 
lands.
  Tribes receive 100 percent of the royalties from the oil and gas 
leases on their lands. The BLM estimates tribes will get up to $12 
million more in royalties over 10 years under the rule. That is money 
we have a trust responsibility to make sure tribes get.
  The BLM estimates the rule would reduce emissions of volatile organic 
compounds, or VOCs, by 310,000 tons over 10 years on tribal lands. 
Reducing VOC emissions means cleaner air for tribes.
  The Federal Government will not be upholding its trust responsibility 
if the BLM rule is repealed.
  I have a statement from the Navajo Nation president, Russell Begaye, 
detailing the reasons the tribe supports the BLM's rule. President 
Begaye states, ``It would be contrary to BLM's trust responsibility to 
allow Navajo Nation resources to be unreasonably wasted, particularly 
when best practices can be cost-effectively employed and are not overly 
burdensome to industry.''
  A really important cobenefit of the rule is protection of public 
health. Toxic chemicals like benzene--harmful to the public, 
carcinogenic--are emitted with methane. Reducing methane emissions will 
reduce these toxic emissions.
  Similarly, other VOCs--that contribute to ozone or smog--are emitted 
with methane. Reducing methane emissions will reduce smog formation. 
Smog irritates the respiratory system, reduces lung function, and 
aggravates asthma--among other public health problems.
  Without the Rule, not only do we lose royalties for hospitals, 
schools, and roads, but citizens pay more for their hospital visits and 
healthcare.
  Industry arguments against the rule do not hold up.
  Industry argues the rule costs too much and will kill jobs.
  That is not true. Here are the facts.
  First, the rule will result in increased production and increased 
revenues, and the technologies and practices to prevent waste are 
economically feasible.
  In fact, many oil and gas operations will see a net benefit. Like the 
company in the San Juan Basin that got almost a fivefold return on its 
investment.
  The BLM conducted an exhaustive cost-benefit analysis of the rule.
  Looking at the average cost to a company to implement the rule, the 
BLM found that profits would be reduced by only 0.15 percent, a bit 
over one-tenth of 1 percent. That is minimal.
  That cost does not even count the savings to industry from increased 
production and increased revenues.
  In fact, the BLM found that net economic benefits to industry could 
be as much as $47 million per year--taking into account the savings 
from increased revenues.
  If the benefits of reducing methane are included, the overall net 
benefit is huge--up to $204 million annually.
  That number does not even count the public health benefits from 
reduced ozone and hazardous pollutants.
  Opponents have exaggerated the costs to industry, and they have not 
taken into account the benefits to States, tribes, and the public.
  Finally, there is no evidence anywhere that the rule will cost even 
one job.
  In fact, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has recorded 2,700 new jobs 
since November 2016, while the price of oil has stayed flat. This 
month, the Baker Hughes rig count showed 300 more rigs drilling for oil 
and gas since the BLM rule came into effect. This is an increase in 
production of over 50 percent.
  Colorado issued the most comprehensive rules to date to decrease 
methane emissions, and not only have no jobs been lost, but jobs have 
been gained as new companies and technologies focused on inspection, 
monitoring, and compliance have opened. These are good American jobs.
  In New Mexico, we have at least 11 new companies in the methane 
mitigation business, and I want to see that number grow.
  Even if the rule were to force an operator to shut down, that company 
would be eligible for exemption from the requirements.
  So job loss is not an issue.
  Second, we hear that the BLM's rule is duplicative and unnecessary, 
that the EPA's methane rule is adequate, and that States are already 
regulating methane.
  Here are the facts.
  The EPA's rule only applies to new and modified oil and gas 
operations. The BLM's rule applies also to existing facilities. This is 
a big difference between the rules. Making sure all current operations 
prevent waste is critical to making sure taxpayers get the benefit 
owed.
  The BLM's rule covers areas not covered by other Federal or State 
rules, like wasteful routine flaring.
  Not all States have passed methane waste prevention rules. My home 
State of New Mexico has not. New Mexico needs to reduce methane 
emissions.
  Also, States and tribes may get a variance if they have similar rules 
that achieve the same results.
  The BLM worked with the EPA and States to ensure the rule works for 
them and does not impose conflicting or redundant requirements.
  Just last week, the EPA announced a 90-day delay on its own methane 
control rule based on industry's objections to regulation. More 
concerning, the EPA withdrew its information request from industry that 
was intended to help EPA determine how to address methane emissions 
from existing oil and gas sources. These EPA actions mean the BLM rule 
is needed more than ever to reduce natural gas waste and the proper 
collection of royalties.
  Third, we hear that the BLM lacks the authority to regulate methane 
waste.
  In January of this year, the U.S. District Court of Wyoming denied a 
preliminary injunction to block the rule. The court found that the rule 
``unambiguously'' was within the BLM's authority.
  The Congressional Review Act is a blunt tool, and it is the wrong 
tool for Congress to use to change provisions in BLM's methane waste 
prevention rule. Disapproval under the CRA would permanently block the 
BLM's authority to reform outdated rules, reforms that the GAO began 
recommending almost a decade ago.
  The BLM should not be prevented from making sure the Federal 
Government meets its obligations to States, tribes, and taxpayers--the 
obligation not to waste public resources and to make sure the public 
gets a fair return on the for-profit use of public resources.
  For these reasons, I oppose the CRA to disapprove the BLM's waste 
prevention rule.
  Just as a final word to summarize why we are here and why this 
victory was so important and why we need to hang tough on this: This 
could be changed if they decide to do another vote or if they try to do 
another piece of legislation or something. The core of this needs to be 
protected. We are here because we don't want to waste our natural 
resources, which belong to the people of America and belong to the 
Tribes. We want to create jobs, which is what this BLM methane waste 
prevention rule does. It creates jobs, and it protects the public 
health.
  I believe we are going to have a couple other speakers. I know 
Senator Heinrich is going to be here.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S2859]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.