[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 73 (Wednesday, April 28, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2268-S2271]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                             Infrastructure

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this body does not have to automatically 
raise taxes to pay for infrastructure. Now, I know some of my 
colleagues would disagree with me. Some want to raise the gasoline tax. 
The President--well, I think he wants to raise every tax known to man 
and beast to spend on infrastructure and other things. And that is--he 
is the President. He is an American. He is entitled to his own opinion.
  But I don't think we spent nearly enough time looking at our current 
spending and asking ourselves if we could reprioritize some of the ways 
that we are spending taxpayer money.
  Let me put it another way. No person with even a casual relationship 
with the Federal budget and/or an IQ above a root vegetable believes 
that every single penny being spent today in the U.S. Government's 
budget is being spent efficiently. I mean, it is just not, Mr. 
President. You know that. You have run a State before. You have put 
together a budget before. It is not. For example, we waste $144 billion 
a year, every year, on improper payments. We send checks to people who 
are not entitled to receive them--for the earned income tax credit, for 
example. We spend money on people who don't exist or aren't qualified 
to receive Medicaid. We even send money to dead people, and they cash 
the checks--or at least their relatives do.
  Now, I am not naive. I know that we will never ever--an organization 
as large as the Federal Government will never be able to avoid a 
percentage of improper payments. I understand that. But we ought to at 
least try, particularly on sending the checks to dead people. Even if 
we could reduce that $144 billion by 10 percent or 20 percent or 25 
percent, we are talking about a very large amount of recurring revenue.
  A very simple solution--I suggested this to the White House, which 
hasn't responded--we have passed legislation in this body, as you know, 
to try to stop sending checks to dead people. There is just one 
problem: It was made effective 3 years from now. I had to agree to it 
in conference to get the bill passed. There is no good reason for it 
other than some lobbyists insisted on it.
  President Biden right now, I think, could pick up at least $10 
billion, maybe more--we are not sure how much--by just saying: 
Effective immediately, my administration is no longer going to send 
checks to dead people. I mean, who is going to get mad? Who supports 
sending money to dead people? The American people don't.
  No. 2, we could repurpose the money--a lot of the money that we have 
already appropriated. I have lost count on how much money we have 
appropriated for coronavirus--not just on public health but also for 
our economy. Look, I voted for many of the bills. I didn't vote for the 
last one because I felt the last one was unnecessary, it was too 
expensive, and it really wasn't about the coronavirus.
  But I think all fairminded people can agree right now on two things: 
No. 1, a lot of the money we appropriated in the last coronavirus bill 
has not been spent, and No. 2, we are no longer in an economic crisis. 
The main crisis we have right now is that our small business women and 
small business men can't find workers.
  So we are currently not in an economic crisis, and I think we can go 
back and take some of that money--and my State, Louisiana is going to 
take--some aspects of my State government--it will take them 10 years 
to spend all the money we sent to them in the last bill. I can tell 
you, given the option in my State, they are going to choose to spend 
that money on infrastructure and not on what Congress sent them the 
money to spend it on.
  No. 3, there is a very interesting study by the CBO taking the 
years--I think it was 2013 to 2017. The CBO took the entire Federal 
nonmilitary workforce, on which we spend $220 billion a year because we 
have to have workers, and they took every job in the Federal Government 
and compared it to every equivalent job in the private sector. It was a 
massive study. So it is apples to apples. The CBO found that the 
Federal Government, on average, pays a Federal worker 17 percent more 
annually than we pay the same worker in the private sector.
  Now, I won't begrudge anybody a living, but what if we could reduce 
that to 15 percent or 12 percent? What if we could just not 
automatically fill every vacancy? What if we actually stopped and asked 
ourselves, if this position has been vacant for 8 months, maybe we 
don't need it. I think there are enormous savings to be had.
  The final thing I will point out: Doing is better than having. Doing 
is better than having. You are happier when you have earned something 
than when somebody has just given it to you.
  We are the most generous Nation in all of human history. The American 
people spend about $1 trillion a year helping our neighbors and some 
folks who are not our neighbors but are less fortunate than we are. But 
we spend about $76 billion a year on Medicaid and on food stamps for 
adults who are able-bodied, who are 55 years of age and younger, and 
who don't have children. Many of them could work. Now, I know there are 
obstacles to them being able to work. Maybe they need help looking for 
a job. Maybe they need employment counseling. Maybe they need help with 
transportation. But we could save enormous amounts of money, and our 
citizens, our people, and our neighbors, who are receiving this money, 
would be better off if they had a job.

[[Page S2269]]

  We don't have to reinvent the wheel. All we have to do is look to 
Denmark. Denmark does an extraordinary job. They are very generous in 
Denmark with their payments for unemployment, but they also have an 
infrastructure set up in government, which we could do, which works 
with people to get them a job and to get them off welfare. And Denmark 
has saved an enormous amount of money. Let me say it again. Doing is 
better than having.
  Am I saying we could save 100 percent of that $75 billion? No. I 
don't know how much we could save. Nobody else does either because we 
have never tried.
  Now, in about--I don't know--7 minutes, I have just given you four or 
five ideas. I am not suggesting that this is anything. I am not 
pretending that I just discovered gravity or something. This isn't 
Earth-shaking. I mean, you can find this with just a cursory amount of 
research. Just call the folks over at the Congressional Budget Office 
and ask them: What are some ways we can save money in our Federal 
budget?
  I just think we would all feel so much better. I know the American 
taxpayer would feel a lot better, if just for a little while, as we 
talk about the importance of infrastructure, true infrastructure--
roads, bridges, broadband--if we just spent a little while, as we talk 
about infrastructure, on how to pay for it without putting our hand 
even further, deeper, and more frequently in the taxpayers' pockets, 
because it can be done. I watched the Presiding Officer do it in 
Colorado. I have seen too many public officials do it. I think we need 
to at least try.
  With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered


                              S.J. Res. 14

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of S.J. 
Res. 14, which we will vote on later today. I want to thank Senator 
Heinrich, Senator Markey, and Senator King for their leadership on this 
resolution. And I might be mistaken here, but I understand that when 
the Presiding Officer was Governor of Colorado, the Presiding Officer 
might have set the precedent for the creation of this point of view 
that is expressed in the resolution before us. So the Navy salutes 
Colorado.
  The American people rely on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
to ensure that our Nation has clean air, clean water, a clean 
environment, and a safe climate. Unfortunately, in 2020, under the 
previous administration, the EPA strayed from its mission any number of 
times.
  One of those missteps was that Agency's methane rescission rule, 
which deregulated methane emissions from the oil and gas industry--our 
Nation's largest industrial source of this dangerous greenhouse gas. By 
passing this resolution, Congress, today, will reject and nullify this 
dangerous rule and restore clean air and climate protections from our 
Nation's largest sources of methane pollution.
  Let me explain what methane is and why it is so harmful to our 
climate and to our health.
  Methane is a super pollutant that damages our lungs and our planet. 
Compared to carbon dioxide, methane is a small part of our overall 
greenhouse gas emissions. Having said that, though, scientists tell us 
that methane is responsible for roughly--get this--one-quarter of the 
manmade global warming that we are witnessing today. Let me say that 
again: Methane is responsible for roughly one-quarter of the manmade 
global warming that we are experiencing and witnessing today.
  Over a 20-year period, methane is 84 times more harmful to our 
climate than carbon dioxide--84 times. For a small molecule, methane 
punches above its weight when it comes to its contributions to climate 
change.
  The oil and gas industry is our Nation's largest source of methane, 
responsible for nearly 30 percent of total methane emissions. For 
comparison, this amount of methane pollution has the same climate 
effect as the emissions from our Nation's entire fleet of passenger 
vehicles in a year.
  In addition to damaging our climate, methane emissions also 
contribute to ground-level ozone, known as smog. Breathing in smog 
harms our lungs, and it aggravates lung diseases like bronchitis and 
asthma. Exposure to smog has been linked to premature death, and 
children and the elderly are particularly vulnerable to these health 
risks. If we want to meaningfully tackle the danger to our health and 
our climate, we need to reduce methane emissions from the entire oil 
and gas sector.
  In 2016, as I was alluding to earlier, the EPA acted to do just that. 
Building on State actions, such as in Colorado, whose former chief 
executive is presiding at this moment, the EPA put into place 
commonsense Clean Air Act regulations that required the oil and gas 
industry to update its equipment. The rule also required the industry 
to inspect frequently in order to find and repair leaks and 
malfunctions that are such a big source of our methane problem.
  Based on feedback from the oil and gas industry meeting, these new 
emission requirements did not place an undue burden on companies or 
raise costs for consumers. In fact, many oil and gas companies and 
industry groups supported the measures, and they still do. That is why 
it was so surprising when, in September of 2020, the EPA issued the 
final methane rescission rule to roll back what so many believed to be 
commonsense approaches for reducing methane risks.
  While the Trump administration moved forward with this damaging 
policy, the consequences of climate change were roiling--roiling--our 
Nation. California, for example, experienced its worst wildfire season 
on record, with historic forest fires covering an area about the size 
of the State of Rhode Island. Other Western States--including Oregon, 
Montana, and Colorado--were ablaze with unprecedented damaging 
wildfires.
  At the same time, other parts of our country were being battered by 
violent, extreme weather. The people of Iowa experienced one of the 
most costly thunderstorms in history, with hurricane force winds, 
causing $7.5 billion in economic damage. It flattened, I am told, over 
half of that State's corn and soybean crops in one day.
  Coastal towns in Southern States like Florida, like Louisiana, and 
like South Carolina were battered by hurricane after hurricane after 
hurricane. In the summer of 2020, last summer, we saw the most 
hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean in recorded history.
  Despite all of this, the Trump administration took a step to undo one 
of the key tools available to us to combat methane emissions that 
contribute greatly to climate change. The methane rescission rule was a 
stark departure from the widely accepted, science-based, and 
commonsense view that we should protect people and our planet from the 
dangers of methane.
  In promulgating the methane rescission rule, the Trump administration 
ignored the global scientific community, including EPA's own Agency 
scientists, who warned that the extreme weather events of 2020 were 
just the tip of the iceberg of consequences we can expect if we don't 
keep global warming below an increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius between 
now and 2040.
  The bottom line is that the Trump methane rescission rule would allow 
more methane pollution, increase public health dangers, and bring us 
ever closer to the brink of irreversible climate catastrophe. It is 
this Trump EPA action that my colleagues and I reject today through the 
resolution before us.
  The methane rescission rule stated that methane couldn't be regulated 
under the Clean Air Act. We reject that. The methane rescission rule 
stated that EPA couldn't regulate the entire oil and gas sector from 
wellhead to storage. We reject that. The methane rescission rule stated 
that greenhouse gasses couldn't be regulated. We reject that. The 
methane rescission rule also reversed EPA's longstanding position on 
what is required to regulate a pollutant, making it harder for EPA to 
implement clean air and climate protections. We reject that as well.

  With approval of this resolution, though, EPA can and should still 
move forward to strengthen methane standards for the oil and gas sector 
in the future. This effort is also very timely, coming on the heels of 
President

[[Page S2270]]

Biden's climate commitment for our Nation to reduce emissions by 50 
percent from 2005 levels by the end of this decade--by 2030.
  Passing this resolution will be good for our health. Passing this 
resolution will be good for our planet. And passing this resolution 
will be good for America's economy. That is why so many States, so many 
environmental groups, and even a number of significant oil and gas 
companies support this resolution.
  Joining over 60 environmental groups, as well as 20 State attorneys 
general, seven major oil and gas companies support today's resolution 
to reinstate requirements to control methane emissions. From the 
Environmental Defense Fund to Shell, from the League of Conservation 
Voters to BP, from the Natural Resources Defense Council to Equinor, 
there is a broad consensus among stakeholders with different 
interests--different interests--that Congress should reject and nullify 
the methane rescission rule.
  So why do a number of oil and gas companies want Congress to reject 
the Trump rule, restore existing regulations, and pursue further 
regulations? They know the best way to boost growth in their sector and 
across the economy is to keep methane and other climate pollution in 
check. With unchecked methane releases in its operations, natural gas 
production and use become part of the climate problem, not a part of 
the solution as we endeavor to drive toward lower carbon fuels.
  Companies know where the global market is heading. They know 
regulations will support innovation and technology deployment in their 
industry, bringing down emission reduction costs for everyone.
  I sometimes like to quote Albert Einstein, who said, among other 
things: ``In adversity lies opportunity.'' Think about that: ``In 
adversity lies opportunity.'' We can see that in the issue of methane 
pollution and in climate change. It presents plenty of challenges. Yes, 
that is true. But it also presents a remarkable opportunity. It is an 
opportunity for us to protect our planet, improve the air that we 
breathe, and strengthen our economy.
  At the same time, the product that the oil and gas industry is 
capturing can be sold to fuel more homes and businesses across the 
country. I want to say that again, too. At the same time, the product 
that the oil and gas industry is capturing can be sold to fuel more 
homes and businesses across the country. That is why today I will 
gladly vote for this resolution, which reaffirms that the Clean Air Act 
requires EPA to take action to protect Americans from dangerous 
pollution like methane.
  In passing this resolution today, Congress is rejecting the Trump 
rule's baseless interpretation of the Clean Air Act and, in its place, 
reinstating commonsense methane public health and climate protections 
across the entire oil and gas sector. We are also clearing a path for 
additional protections from methane and other hazardous climate 
pollutants.
  As a Senate, we are making our intent clear: The Clean Air Act gives 
EPA the authority and the mandate to establish methane emissions 
standards, even stronger than the ones we reinstate with this 
resolution. This includes all facets of the oil and gas industry now 
and moving forward, from production to processing and from transmission 
to storage.
  We are saying to EPA loud and clear: It is your mission to protect 
the environment, to protect human health and public welfare from the 
dangers of climate pollutants like methane. And there is a lot of work 
still to do before that mission can be achieved. It is time that we get 
to that work. We don't have a lot of time to waste.

  I have a couple of unanimous consent requests I would like to offer. 
One is to place supportive materials into the Record. I ask unanimous 
consent to enter into the Record several of my materials in support of 
S.J. Res. 14 that is before us today; first, the Biden administration's 
Statement of Administration Policy supporting passage of the 
resolution; second, two letters of support for passing this joint 
resolution--one from the 57 leading environmental and advocacy groups 
and another, the Shell Oil Company.
  These letters demonstrate the breadth of support for regulating this 
harmful pollutant and rejecting the methane rescission rule.
  I ask unanimous consent for these to be inserted into the Record as 
appropriate
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   Statement of Administration Policy


     S.J. Res. 14--A joint resolution providing for congressional 
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule 
submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``Oil and 
  Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and 
                       Modified Sources Review''

                (Sen. Heinrich, D-NM, and 23 cosponsors)

       The Administration supports passage of S.J. Res. 14, a 
     joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval of 
     the rule ``Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for 
     New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources Review,'' published 
     at 85 Fed. Reg. 57018 (September 14, 2020). This action would 
     ensure that this rule, which eliminated pollution standards 
     for methane emissions from the oil and gas sector and 
     eliminated all emission standards for the transmission and 
     storage segments of that sector, will have no force or effect 
     and reinstate the pollution reduction requirements 
     established under the Clean Air Act in 2012 and 2016.
       Addressing methane leaks through detection and repair by 
     using already cost-effective technologies can spur the 
     creation of good-paying jobs fixing leaking equipment and 
     pipelines--all while minimizing waste and reducing this 
     powerful source of pollution. Today, the oil and gas sector 
     is the largest industrial source of methane emissions--a 
     potent climate-disrupting greenhouse gas that is responsible 
     for approximately one-third of the global warming and the 
     resulting climate disruption we are already experiencing from 
     climate change. In order to effectively mitigate climate 
     change, addressing methane pollution from this and other 
     sectors is an urgent and essential step.
       Every American has a fundamental right to breathe clean air 
     and drink clean water. These methane emissions--leaking 
     during oil and gas production, transmission, and distribution 
     activities--also contribute to the formation of smog, or 
     ground-level ozone, which is harmful to both human health and 
     agriculture. Oil and gas production is also a significant 
     emitter of carcinogenic and smog-forming volatile organic 
     compounds into frontline communities. These communities, as 
     well as children, the elderly, outdoor workers, and 
     individuals with respiratory conditions, are at higher risk 
     of experiencing harmful health outcomes due to exposure to 
     such pollution. Oil and gas pollution can also be carried by 
     the wind and intensify air pollution problems in communities 
     along that path, including across state boundaries.
       The Clean Air Act authorizes the Environmental Protection 
     Agency (EPA) to protect Americans from dangerous air 
     pollution, including methane and volatile organic compounds. 
     Nonetheless, the rule that this resolution disapproves of 
     took four harmful actions that increased the amount of 
     harmful pollution to which Americans are exposed: (1) the 
     elimination of pollution standards for methane emissions from 
     the oil and gas sector; (2) the elimination of all air 
     pollution standards for the transmission and storage segments 
     of the oil and gas sector; (3) removal of the predicate that 
     establishes EPA's obligation to address the extensive methane 
     pollution emitted by existing sources; and (4) establishment 
     of a new, non-statutory requirement that EPA make an 
     additional, pollutant-specific finding of significant 
     contribution to endangerment before addressing harmful air 
     pollution from a sector already regulated under the Clean Air 
     Act. All four of these actions would be reversed by the 
     passage and signature of the resolution.
       S.J. Res. 14 will restore robust Clean Air Act pollution 
     standards for this sector, protecting American communities. 
     The resolution will also clear the pathway for EPA to 
     evaluate opportunities to promulgate even stronger standards 
     under section 111 of the Clean Air Act to address dangerous 
     methane and other pollution from both new and existing 
     sources across the oil and gas sector. The Administration 
     looks forward to working with the Congress to restore these 
     critically important pollution standards.
                                  ____

                                                   April 26, 2021.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Charles Schumer,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington. DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Schumer, Minority 
     Leader McCarthy, and Minority Leader McConnell: On behalf of 
     our collective millions of members and supporters, we write 
     to express our full support of Senate Joint Resolution (S.J. 
     Res.) 14 and House Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 34), providing 
     for congressional disapproval of recent executive action to 
     roll back the 2016 methane and volatile organic compound

[[Page S2271]]

     standards. We urge Congress to swiftly vote to pass this 
     resolution, an action which would allow the Environmental 
     Protection Agency (EPA) to accelerate strengthening 
     safeguards against methane and other pollution.
       As you know, methane is a potent pollutant that is 
     responsible for around 25 percent of the impacts of climate 
     change we are experiencing today. In 2016, the Environmental 
     Protection Agency (EPA) established regulations to tackle 
     methane and other dangerous emissions from new and modified 
     sources within the oil and gas sector, which is the largest 
     industrial source of methane pollution. This action took 
     concrete steps to implement science-based standards to combat 
     previously unchecked emissions. The oil and gas sector is 
     likewise a significant source of smog-forming volatile 
     organic compounds and hazardous air pollutants in communities 
     across the nation.
       In the waning days of the previous administration, EPA 
     finalized a rule that eliminated safeguards that protect our 
     climate and communities from oil and gas pollution and 
     attempted to erect barriers to the promulgation of future 
     standards. Many oil and gas operators, natural gas users like 
     utilities, states, and environmental and health groups 
     support federal standards to regulate methane emissions. Many 
     environmental and health groups, state and local governments, 
     utilities and other gas purchasers, oil and gas operators, 
     and even the American Petroleum Institute (API), have 
     expressed support for federal rules to curb the oil and gas 
     industry's wasteful methane releases--wasted gas worth $2.4 
     billion, which could be used to heat approximately 12.5 
     million homes in a year. Adopting S.J. Res. 14 and H.J. Res. 
     34 will reinstate pollution protections and clear the path 
     for EPA to move forward with widely-supported, sensible 
     safeguards for methane and other pollution from oil and gas 
     production.
       We must take early action to reduce harmful methane 
     emissions as a necessary step to combating the climate 
     crisis. Regulation of dangerous methane emissions is critical 
     to lowering the magnitude of warming we will experience 
     around 2050. We need leaders who will fight for a healthier 
     future and seek ambitious next-generation standards for new 
     and existing oil and gas facilities. S.J. Res. 14 provides 
     the EPA with a clean slate to get back to a regulatory 
     process that makes scientific sense and gets our goal of 
     ambitious methane emissions reductions back on track, while 
     advancing our collective climate and environmental justice 
     goals.
           Sincerely,
         Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, Brighter Green, 
           Center for Civic Policy, Center for Human Rights and 
           Environment, Chapel Hill Organization for Clean Energy, 
           Citizens Caring for the Future, Citizens' Environmental 
           Coalition, Clean Air Council, Clean Air Task Force, 
           Clean Water Action, Climate Advocates Voces Unidas, 
           Climate Law & Policy Project, Conservation Colorado, 
           Conservation Voters New Mexico, Dakota Resource 
           Council.
         Defend Our Future, Earth Action, Inc., Earthjustice, 
           Earthworks, Empire State Consumer Project, 
           Environmental Defense Fund, Fort Berthold POWER, 
           Franciscan Action Network, Grand Canyon Trust, 
           GreenLatinos, Health Action New Mexico, Hispanic Access 
           Foundation, Interfaith Power & Light, League of 
           Conservation Voters, League of Oil and Gas Impacted 
           Coloradans, Moms Clean Air Force, National Organization 
           for Women, National Parks Conservation Association.
         Natural Resources Defense Council, New Mexico Interfaith 
           Power and Light, New Mexico Sportsmen, Partnership for 
           Responsible Business, Powder River Basin Resource 
           Council, ProgressNow Colorado, Project CoffeeHouse, 
           Protect All Children's Environment, Public Citizen, 
           Rachel Carson Council, Responsible Drilling Alliance, 
           Rio Grande Indivisible.
         Rocky Mountain Farmers Union, Santa Fe Green Chamber of 
           Commerce, Sciencecorps, Sierra Club, The Evangelical 
           Environmental Network, The Greater Prince William 
           Climate Action Network, The Ohio Environmental Council, 
           The Wilderness Society, Waterkeeper Alliance, Western 
           Colorado Alliance, Western Organization of Resource 
           Councils, Young Evangelicals for Climate Action.
                                  ____



                                            Shell Oil Company,

                                      Houston, TX, April 22, 2021.
     Hon. Tom Carper,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Shelley Moore Capito,
     Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Environment and Public 
         Works, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Frank Pallone,
     Chairman, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers,
     Ranking Member, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Capito, Chairman 
     Pallone, and Ranking Member Rodgers: Shell supports passage 
     of a proposed joint resolution of disapproval under the 
     Congressional Review Act (CRA) to rescind the 2020 rule ``Oil 
     and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, 
     Reconstructed and Modified Sources Review'' and reinstate the 
     direct regulation of methane emissions from new and modified 
     sources established by the Environmental Protection Agency in 
     2016.
       Beginning in 2015, Shell worked with EPA and industry peers 
     to develop a workable approach to regulating methane from 
     onshore oil and gas sources. Shell was the first oil major to 
     signal support for the rule. Beginning in 2017, Shell urged 
     the Trump Administration to make desired refinements to the 
     regulation, but to maintain the direct regulation of methane 
     from onshore sources established by the previous 
     Administration.
       The efficient regulation of methane from onshore oil and 
     gas production makes good business sense, as methane captured 
     is methane sold, advances the energy transition and expands 
     the role of natural gas as a transition fuel. The 2016 rule 
     sparked innovation, contributing to the development of more 
     efficient and affordable pneumatics, better cameras and new 
     airborne imagery, tools that help us better understand and 
     control methane leaks from our assets.
       I have appreciated the leadership of those in Congress 
     working to advance this joint resolution. I have attached an 
     oped in support of the resolution published last week in the 
     Houston Chronicle.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Gretchen Watkins,
                                                        President.

  Mr. CARPER. Now, Mr. President, I will yield the floor, but before I 
do, I want to salute you for your role in an earlier day, in an earlier 
place, your State of Colorado, for helping get this started. We are in 
your debt. Good work. God bless.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Rosen). The Senator from Iowa