[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 73 (Wednesday, April 28, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2282-S2284]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

  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''--
                               Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume legislative session.
  The clerk will read the title of the joint resolution for the third 
time.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading 
and was read the third time


                              s.j. res. 14

  Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, Leader Chuck Schumer, Chairman Tom 
Carper of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senator Angus 
King, Senator Edward Markey and I are leading supporters and sponsors 
of 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, 85 Fed. Reg. 57,018, Sept. 14, 2020, also 
known as methane rescission rule. We submit these comments to provide 
the Senate with addit{onal information regarding the intent in adopting 
this resolution.
  The atmospheric buildup of greenhouse gases, such as methane, is 
changing the climate at a pace and in a way that endangers human 
health, society, our economy, and the natural environment. Specific 
public health impacts of anthropogenic climate change include 
respiratory harms associated with smoke inhalation from unprecedented 
climate-driven forest fires, heat stroke, and other health effects of 
increasingly frequent heat waves, and more widespread vector borne 
diseases. Other public welfare impacts include displacing U.S. 
communities by retreating snow and ice and rising sea levels, droughts 
that impact agricultural production and farming communities, and

[[Page S2283]]

changes in the frequency and intensity of heat waves, precipitation, 
and extreme weather events that have a disproportionate impact on our 
Nation most vulnerable.
  A key chemical constituent of natural gas, methane is a leading 
contributing cause of climate change. It is 28 to 36 times more 
powerful than carbon dioxide in raising the Earth's surface temperature 
when measured over a 100-year time scale and about 84 times more 
powerful when measured over a 20-year timeframe.
  Industrial sources emit greenhouse gases in great quantities, and 
methane emissions from all segments of the oil and gas industry are 
especially significant in their contribution to overall emissions 
levels and surface temperature rise.
  It is not possible to address the problem of rising global 
atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations tEy achieving U.S. net 
greenhouse gas neutrality. The United States cannot become greenhouse 
gas neutral without reducing greenhouse gas emissions from all 
industrial sources, regardless of the relative size of any one emission 
source or the disparate locations of the points of emission.
  Within this context, the methane rescission rule should be 
disapproved by Congress. The rule finalized regulatory actions and 
introduced legal interpretations that contravene the Clean Air Act and 
congressional intent for EPA to take strong action to regulate and 
abate greenhouse gas emissions, such as methane, from all sources.
  S.J. Res. 14 renders the methane rescission rule's effect void and 
demonstrates Congress's disapproval of the new findings of fact and 
interpretations of law upon which this rule was based.
  By adopting this resolution of disapproval, it is our view that 
Congress reaffirms that the Clean Air Act requires EPA to act to 
protect Americans from sources of climate pollution like methane, which 
endangers the public's health and welfare.
  In rejecting the methane rescission rule's misguided legal 
interpretations, the resolution clarifies our intent that EPA should 
regulate methane and other pollution emissions from all oil and gas 
sources, including production, processing, transmission, and storage 
segments under the authority of section 111 of the Clean Air Act.
  In addition, we intend that section 111 of the Clean Air Act 
obligates and provides EPA with the legal authority to regulate 
existing sources of methane emissions in all of these segments.
  In addition, we do not intend that section 111 of Clean Air Act 
requires EPA to make a pollutant-specific significant contribution 
finding before regulating emissions of a new pollutant from a listed 
source category, although EPA could make such a finding if it chooses 
to do so on a case-by-case basis.
  Disapproval of the methane rescission rule does not preclude future 
regulation under section 111 of the Clean Air Act of methane, VOCs or 
other pollution from the oil and gas industry. This resolution 
nullifies a rule that strips away public health and welfare protections 
and deregulates the oil and gas industry. Any future rule that imposes 
regulatory requirements on the oil and gas industry, provides 
additional public health and welfare protections, or establishes or 
strengthens standards on sources of methane and other pollutant 
emissions would have the opposite intent and effect of the methane 
rescission rule and therefore cannot be construed as ``substantially 
the same'' as the methane rescission rule.
  In fact, with the congressional adoption of this resolution, we 
encourage EPA to strengthen the standards we reinstate and aggressively 
regulate methane and other pollution emissions from new, modified, and 
existing sources throughout the production, processing, transmission, 
and storage segments of the oil and gas industry under section 111 of 
the Clean Air Act.
  The welfare of our planet and of our communities depend on it.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today in support of the joint 
resolution of disapproval, which would reinstate critical regulations 
on methane emissions from the oil and gas industry.
  Last summer, the Trump administration finalized a midnight rule that 
weakened and in some cases altogether eliminated requirements that oil 
and natural gas companies limit methane and volatile organic compound 
emissions from their operations. This action was taken despite 
methane's proven harmful impacts on air quality, health, and climate 
change.
  Methane leaks from oil and gas wells are often accompanied by leaks 
of harmful carcinogens like benzene, resulting in health effects for 
the most vulnerable, including children and seniors. My home State of 
California is still dealing with the fallout of the Aliso Canyon gas 
leak--the worst gas leak in U.S. history-during which more than 100,000 
metric tons of methane was emitted into the air. Many nearby residents 
reported having headaches, bloody noses, nausea, and rashes.
  Methane also has more than 80 times the global warming potential of 
carbon dioxide and accounts for 10 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas 
emissions. According to one study, the Trump aministration action will 
result in methane leaks equivalent to up to 592 million metric tons of 
carbon dioxide. This will have irreversible effects on our climate.
  In California, we are already experiencing the destructive effects of 
climate change. California has seen recordbreaking and devastating 
droughts, floods, and wildfires. These disasters cannot be separated 
from global warming and the emissions of greenhouse gasses that cause 
it.
  I am glad to see Congress taking action to reinstate necessary 
regulations on methane emissions, and I look forward to taking 
additional action, along with my conngressional colleagues, to combat 
climate change and ensure clean air for all Americans.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now, as we approach the 100-day mark of 
this new Congress, the Senate is about to take its first major step in 
fighting climate change. In a moment, the Senate will vote on 
reinstating commonsense rules to reduce methane emissions. It will be 
the first time the Senate Democratic majority has used the 
Congressional Review Act, and it is no mistake that we have chosen to 
use the law first and foremost on the subject of climate change.
  Under this Democratic majority, the Senate will be a place where we 
take decisive, ambitious, and effective action against climate change. 
Of course, reducing methane emissions is not the only thing we need to 
do to fight climate change, but it is a very significant and large 
first step.
  Methane accounts for roughly a quarter of all the human-caused global 
warming that has transpired since the Industrial Revolution. Restoring 
these methane-reducing rules will be one of the most significant 
climate actions that the Senate has taken in more than a decade.
  I urge my colleagues to vote yes and commend Senators Heinrich, King, 
and Markey for their great work on this issue.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The joint resolution having been read the third time, the question 
is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Ms. 
Cantwell) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), 
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Alabama 
(Mr. Shelby), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Toomey) would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Smith). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote or change their vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 175 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cardin

[[Page S2284]]


     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--42

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Risch
     Romney
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Cantwell
     Cramer
     Paul
     Rounds
     Shelby
     Toomey
  The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 14) was passed, as follows:

                              S.J. Res 14

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     disapproves the rule submitted by the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``Oil and Natural 
     Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and 
     Modified Sources Review'' (85 Fed. Reg. 57018 (September 14, 
     2020)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table.
  The Senator from Delaware.

                          ____________________