[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 111 (Friday, June 25, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H3139-H3148]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL 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''

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 486, I call up 
the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 14) 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'', and ask for its immediate consideration in 
the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 486, the joint 
resolution is considered read.
  The text of the joint resolution is 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 SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for 
one hour, equally divided and controlled by the Chair and the ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their 
respective designees.
  The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Mrs. Rodgers) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.


                             General Leave

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on S.J. Res. 14.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today, we are here to consider S.J. Res. 14, a joint 
resolution providing for congressional disapproval of the Environmental 
Protection Agency's 2020 methane rescission rule. This Trump EPA action 
removed direct Federal limits on methane pollution from new and 
modified oil and gas facilities, essentially increasing pollution and 
exacerbating the climate crisis.
  While we are voting on the Senate version of this joint resolution 
today, I want to thank my colleagues, Representatives DeGette, Peters, 
and Lamb, for leading this effort in the House. The House version of 
this resolution advanced out of the Energy and Commerce Committee 
earlier this month.
  Mr. Speaker, methane is a potent climate-disrupting greenhouse gas 
that is responsible for approximately one-third of our warming and 
resulting climate disruption. Addressing methane is an urgent and 
essential step to mitigate climate change.
  The greatest and most cost-effective way to curb methane pollution 
over the next decade is through the fossil fuel sector, which is the 
largest industrial source of methane emissions in the United States.
  Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA has a responsibility and obligation 
to protect public health and welfare from dangerous climate pollution 
like methane. But because of the Trump rescission rule, there are now 
no clean air protections in place to curb dangerous methane pollution 
from the oil and gas sector.
  What is more, the Trump rule created massive regulatory loopholes 
that shield the vast majority of climate pollution produced by the oil 
and gas industry from critical Federal standards for years to come.
  The Trump action was a thinly veiled attempt to block regulation of 
the worst oil and gas industry actors at the expense of our health, our 
safety, and our planet; and it came at a time when we need these 
protections more than ever.
  Mr. Speaker, without bold action to curb emissions from the hundreds 
of thousands of sources in the oil and gas sector, methane pollution 
will continue to cause significant harm to public health, threaten the 
stability of our economy, and compromise the well-being of future 
generations and the planet.
  That is why this joint resolution disapproving of the rescission rule 
and reinstating the 2016 Obama-era methane standards is so important.
  Ambitiously addressing methane can yield tremendous climate, public 
health, and financial benefits across the country. It is why we see an 
outpouring of support from business and consumer groups, State and 
Tribal officials, local government officials, outdoor recreation and 
tourism leaders, environmental and conservation groups, and health and 
faith leaders. We even have significant support from within the oil and 
gas industry itself.

[[Page H3140]]

  So, today, we are using the Congressional Review Act to soundly 
reject and nullify one of the most egregious environmental rollbacks of 
the Trump administration.
  With today's vote, Congress stops the significant retreat we 
witnessed during the previous administration in the fight against 
climate change, and we reinstate an essential tool for addressing the 
harm a warming world means for our communities, our health, our 
economy, and the planet.
  With today's vote, Congress restores the robust Clean Air Act 
pollution standards established in 2012 and 2016, while clearing a path 
for stronger protections in the future.
  With today's vote, Mr. Speaker, Congress recognizes the danger 
methane poses, as well as the economic opportunity and certainty 
created with commonsense and cost-effective limits on this pollution.
  Since the Senate already passed S.J. Res. 14 with a bipartisan vote 
of 52-42, it is now up to the House to do the same so we can send this 
resolution to the President's desk.
  For the sake of our communities, our families, our country, and our 
future, I strongly urge all Members to join me in supporting this joint 
resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution of 
disapproval of the EPA's methane policy rule.
  This resolution is another attack on the hardworking American men and 
women who supply energy that is so important to our economy and our 
national security.
  Don't be mistaken, this is an attack on American energy security.
  Remember those gas lines from the 1970s? Remember the energy security 
and dominance truly captured in the last few years?
  In 2020, America became energy independent. It was a longtime goal. 
President Jimmy Carter established the Department of Energy with a goal 
of becoming energy independent, recognizing how important a diverse 
supply of energy is to America.
  So why is the majority moving forward right now?
  Gas prices are already on the rise, threatening our economic recovery 
and causing pain at the pump for Americans who are ready to put the 
pandemic behind them.

  We are still recovering from the Colonial Pipeline cyberattack, which 
shut down the Nation's most important pipeline, causing supply 
shortages and price spikes.
  If it is not already obvious to the Democrats across the aisle, 
affordable and reliable supplies of gasoline are absolutely critical to 
our economy. It is critical to our way of life.
  This is a misguided resolution. Taken together with President Biden's 
executive orders banning oil and natural gas drilling on Federal lands 
and canceling the Keystone XL pipeline, it will likely drive gas prices 
even higher.
  So why is the majority pushing this resolution?
  This resolution has next to nothing to do with protecting the 
environment or reducing methane emissions. The States and the EPA 
already regulate methane emissions, and we have a well-established 
program that supports the industry to go even further.
  Reducing methane emissions is a priority for all of us, for the oil 
and natural gas industry; and thanks to innovation and industry action, 
the United States methane emissions rates in the largest producing 
regions have declined 70 percent in the last decade, even as our 
production is surging.
  The United States is the world's leading producers of oil and natural 
gas. That is something that we should be celebrating. That is so 
foundational to our economy, to our national security.
  In addition to that, we are leading the world in emission reductions 
at the same time. The United States of America has led the world in 
reducing carbon emissions, more than the next 12 countries combined, 
more than any other country in the world.
  Again, that is something that we should be celebrating. Let's not 
jeopardize that progress to fulfill the Green New Deal wish list.
  We all know that this resolution is unnecessary. President Biden has 
made his intentions very clear. His administration has declared war on 
affordable fossil energy and energy security. President Biden has 
already canceled the Keystone pipeline and banned drilling on Federal 
lands. Now Democrats are proposing this resolution to clear the pathway 
for President Biden and the EPA to impose burdensome new regulations on 
the energy industry.
  This is just the tip of the iceberg to regulate other sources under 
section 111 of the Clean Air Act, regardless of their overall 
contribution to air pollution.
  Mr. Speaker, I would submit we should be focusing on results, not on 
feel-good measures. This is an attack on American energy.
  Who is next?
  The EPA has its crosshairs on the backbone of American industry, 
including manufacturing, paper, chemicals, plastics, and metals. 
Millions of good-paying American jobs are on the line. Our 
competitiveness is on the line. American leadership is on the line. Our 
national security is on the line.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this harmful 
resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), your neighbor and the prime 
sponsor of this legislation.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, along with Mr. Peters and Mr. Lamb, I am 
very proud to stand as the sponsor of the House companion of S.J. Res. 
14, and I rise in strong support of the legislation.
  The purpose of the legislation is very simple. It is to reduce our 
methane emissions and to help stave off the worst effects of the 
climate crisis before it is too late.
  Methane, as we all know, is one of the most potent greenhouse gases 
on the planet, and when it is released into our atmosphere, it becomes 
a leading contributor to global warming.
  Climate experts agree that one of the most important things we can do 
right now to combat the climate crisis is to reduce the amount of 
methane in our atmosphere, and that is exactly what this legislation 
does.
  It restores the 2016 methane emission rules that were put into place 
during the Obama administration, and it negates the Trump 
administration's last-minute attempt to roll back these rules on its 
way out the door.
  One-third of all of the methane that is released in this country 
comes from the production of oil and gas.
  This legislation will, once again, require our oil and gas producers 
to take the steps needed to reduce the methane emitting from their 
drilling sites.
  These emissions don't just harm our planet. When methane is released 
from oil and gas sites, it is often accompanied by other pollutants 
that are known to cause additional harm to people's health.

  That is why this legislation is so important, and that is why the 
Trump administration's egregious attempt to eliminate these important 
rules and let oil and gas companies release more methane from their 
drilling sites was met with such outrage and fury by citizens across 
this country.
  And you know something?
  And not just from the citizens, but from the biggest oil and gas 
companies in the country, including ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, and more, 
and also from smaller producers around the country. These are the 
companies that stand to benefit most from the rollback of the methane 
rules, and even these are against it.
  So when I hear the ranking member talking about how we are going to 
be on the backs of oil and gas companies, the very companies she is 
talking about support this legislation today.
  I just want to read a few of the names of the companies, large and 
small, that support the rollback of the Trump administration's methane 
rule and the reinstatement of the Obama-era rule:
  BP America; Shell U.S.; Equinor North America; Total USA; ExxonMobil; 
Jonah Energy; Pioneer Natural Resources; EQT Corporation; Interstate 
Natural Gas Association of America; Cheniere; DTE Energy; Equitrans 
Midstream Corporation; Occidental Petroleum; Devon Energy; Edison 
Electric Institute, which is a consortium of groups; Center for 
Liquefied Natural Gas; Austin Energy;

[[Page H3141]]

Calpine Corporation; Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Tenaska, Inc.; 
and others have all submitted comments, and the comments they have 
submitted are in support of S.J. Res. 14 and the rollback of the Trump 
administration's egregious rule.
  So when my colleagues on the other side say this is going to hurt oil 
and gas, the very companies they are talking about support this because 
the Trump administration's rule was so extreme and egregious.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a summary of the quotes in 
support of this legislation from these companies, a letter from BP, a 
letter from Occidental, and a letter from Equinor.

          Energy Companies Support Federal Methane Regulations

       Many oil and gas companies publicly support direct federal 
     regulation of methane because methane pollution hurts public 
     health, the planet, and the industry itself. These companies 
     also support restoring the common-sense requirements to 
     control methane pollution that were eliminated and undermined 
     at the end of 2020.
       Methane regulations work to reduce methane emissions and 
     waste from oil and gas operations. To meet the requirements, 
     companies use cost-effective tools and off-the-shelf 
     technologies to find and plug methane leaks and reduce 
     venting and flaring. But the previous administration revoked 
     all federal air pollution limits for oil and gas transmission 
     and storage facilities and created legal confusion that 
     undermines further progress in cutting methane pollution. 
     Here's what industry is saying about closing these loopholes 
     and directly regulating methane:
       BP America: ``Direct federal regulation of methane is key 
     to preventing leaks throughout industry and protecting the 
     environment--and gets us closer to #netzero. That's why we 
     support the Congressional Review Act methane resolution.''
       Shell US: ``Sound policy surrounding natural gas is 
     critical to its role in the energy transition. We need to 
     restore the direct federal regulation of #methane emissions--
     and we urge Congress to approve the methane resolution under 
     the Congressional Review Act.''
       Equinor North America: ``Ensuring that natural gas 
     continues to provide climate benefits means reducing 
     emissions from its production. We support the methane 
     resolution under the Congressional Review Act. Direct federal 
     methane regulation is an important step on the pathway to net 
     zero.''
       Total USA: ``Curbing methane emissions with bold policies 
     is imperative to get to #NetZero2050. We welcome direct 
     federal regulation of #methane emissions and support 
     resolution via the Congressional Review Act #cutmethane.''
       ExxonMobil: ``Last year we [ExxonMobil] announced our 
     support for the direct regulation of methane emissions for 
     new and existing oil and gas facilities. That hasn't 
     changed.''
       Jonah Energy: ``Jonah Energy believes in common sense 
     federal regulation of methane emissions to reduce impacts and 
     achieve climate goals. We support Congressional Review Act 
     measure S.J. Res. 14 (https:/lnkd.in/ebHbACW) that will 
     reverse prior rulemaking and allow reasonable federal 
     oversight of methane. In fact, we opposed the rollback by the 
     last administration. Achieving climate goals is important in 
     our backyard, and across the nation. Reasonable federal 
     regulations of methane emissions provide consistency and 
     certainty covering all sectors of natural gas development and 
     promote public confidence our national energy sources.
       Pioneer Natural Resources: Pioneer has long supported 
     federal regulation of methane if those regulations encourage 
     innovation and operational flexibility. Clear rules would 
     provide certainty for operators and strong environmental 
     benefits. We support use of the CRA to reinstate regulation 
     of methane''
       EQT Corporation: EQT Corporation supports congressional 
     resolutions that would reinstate a rule imposing a federal 
     standard on methane. Company believes the ``responsible 
     development of natural gas will help meet future global 
     energy demand as we address climate change together''.
       Interstate Natural Gas Association of America:- ``We 
     support federal methane standards . . . our members have a 
     long history of minimizing methane emissions from their 
     operation. A stable regulatory framework will allow the 
     industry to invest in the critical infrastructure necessary 
     to reduce emissions and meet increasing demand for cleaner 
     and more affordable energy.
       Cheniere: To maximize the climate benefits of natural gas, 
     we recognize the imperative to minimize #methane emissions 
     across the natural gas value chain. We support effective 
     policies and regulations that reduce methane emissions, 
     including the current Congressional Review Act effort to 
     restore federal regulation of methane emissions. Cheniere 
     will continue to collaborate with industry, academia and the 
     scientific community to deliver cost-effective solutions that 
     reduce methane emissions from the natural gas sector. We also 
     will continue to push for increased transparency regarding 
     methane emissions reporting and data, as well as efforts that 
     create a level playing field with all operators domestically 
     and internationally.
       DTE Energy: Strong, sensible methane regulations at the 
     federal and state level give our industry the foundation on 
     which to go even further through these voluntary initiatives. 
     Providing a proper regulatory framework ensures industry's 
     ability to continue to make important progress reducing 
     methane emissions. [Public Comment 11/25/2019]
       Equitrans Midstream Corporation: ``We must continue to push 
     our industry forward in a meaningful way in order to 
     effectuate real mitigation of climate change impacts, and we 
     support approval of the methane resolution under the 
     Congressional Review Act,'' said Diana Charletta, president 
     and chief operating officer of Equitrans Midstream.
       Occidental Petroleum: ``We support the direct regulation of 
     methane . . . because it is very potent and we need to have 
     regulations in place to ensure that we have adequate controls 
     throughout the industry.''
       Devon Energy: We believe a meaningful reduction in methane 
     emissions is essential to managing the risks of climate 
     change. While the Congressional Review Act is an 
     extraordinary legislative tool that should be used 
     judiciously and with caution, we support the ongoing effort 
     in Congress to chart a path toward a durable framework for 
     regulating methane at the federal level that encourages 
     innovation and operational flexibility.
       Edison Electric Institute: EEi supports Congress using the 
     Congressional Review Act to enable EPA to develop strong and 
     cost-effective federal regulations on methane emissions 
     throughout the natural gas supply chain for new and existing 
     sources.
       Center for Liquified Natural Gas: The Center for Liquefied 
     Natural Gas (CLNG) and its members support the proposed 
     resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act 
     (CRA) and the reinstatement of regulations of methane 
     emissions from the natural gas sector.
       Austin Energy, Calpine Corporation, Pacific Gas and 
     Electric Company, Tenaska Inc, and Others (Joint Comments): 
     ``EPA should continue to directly regulate methane from new 
     sources in the oil and natural gas source category . . . the 
     importance of controlling these emissions is clear when 
     considering that the oil and natural gas source category is 
     the largest source of anthropogenic methane emissions in the 
     US, contributing 31 percent of US methane emissions in 2017, 
     according to EPA's Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions 
     and Sinks: 1990-2017 (published in 2019).''
                                  ____



                                             BP America, Inc.,

                                    Washington, DC, June 10, 2021.
     Hon. Frank Pallone,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Pallone and Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers: 
     bp's ambition is to become a net zero company by 2050 or 
     sooner and to help the world get there too. This includes 
     advocating for policies that support net zero.
       bp supports the direct federal regulation of methane for 
     new and existing sources across the value chain. Methane is a 
     potent greenhouse gas with a warming potential 80 times 
     greater than carbon dioxide over the first 20 years in the 
     atmosphere. We believe regulation is needed to ensure all 
     companies are prioritizing methane emissions reductions. This 
     is why bp supports the Congressional Review Act resolution on 
     methane.
       We appreciate the leadership of Representative DeGette and 
     others who recognize that regulating methane is good for the 
     environment, business, and for US energy security. Further, 
     we believe regulation can help preserve the role for natural 
     gas in a low carbon future.
       bp is in action to reduce methane emissions from our 
     operations. We aim for zero routine flaring in our US onshore 
     operations by 2025 and have recently completed construction 
     of a $300 million electrified, central processing facility in 
     the Permian Basin in Texas to enable emissions reductions. 
     Additionally, we aim to install methane measurement at all 
     our existing major oil and gas processing sites by 2023, 
     publish the data, and then drive a 50% reduction in the 
     methane intensity of our operations.
       This is a critical decade for climate action. We appreciate 
     the leadership of Representative DeGette and the work of this 
     committee to advance this issue in Congress.
       I, or a member of my team, will be happy to meet with you 
     or your staff to talk more about bp's ambition and our 
     efforts to minimize methane.
           Sincerely,

                                                 Mary Streett,

                                  Senior Vice President, Americas,
     Communications & Advocacy.
                                  ____



                                                   Occidantal,

                                       Houston, TX, June 10, 2021.
       Members of the Energy and Commerce Committee: Thank you for 
     the opportunity to provide our views on H.J Res. 34. The 
     demand for energy and products that rely upon oil and natural 
     gas will continue to rise globally, and we take seriously the 
     charge to provide for those needs while approaching Net-Zero. 
     Occidental was the first U.S. oil and gas company to 
     establish comprehensive net-zero greenhouse gas emissions 
     goals, with a pathway to Net-Zero before 2040 for Scope 1 and 
     Scope 2 emissions, and an ambition to achieve Net-Zero for 
     Scope 3 emissions before 2050. Your efforts to evaluate and 
     advance legislation to address climate change are critical to 
     helping companies like Occidental achieve these objectives.

[[Page H3142]]

       Occidental supports the data-driven, direct regulation of 
     methane which is why we support H.J. Res 34. Earlier this 
     year, President Biden directed EPA to draft new methane 
     regulations for both new and existing sources and we are 
     working with the Administration on those efforts. This 
     legislation will clarify EPA's authority to regulate methane 
     and allow EPA additional flexibility to write a thorough 
     rule. Because it has access to the most comprehensive 
     emissions data via GHG reporting program and other means, we 
     strongly believe that EPA should lead the effort to regulate 
     methane. In their rulemaking process, EPA should work with 
     external stakeholders to craft public policy that achieves 
     methane emissions reductions, incentivizes early action, and 
     supports flexibility and innovation. We look forward to 
     sharing data and best practice information about our 
     operations with EPA to assist in the creation of strong and 
     effective regulations.
       Occidental thanks Representatives DeGette, Lamb, and Peters 
     for their leadership on this important legislation and we 
     look forward to additional opportunities to collaborate on 
     ways to approach Net-Zero.
           Sincerely,

                                                 Vicki Hollub,

                            President and Chief Executive Officer,
     Occidental.
                                  ____



                                                   Equinor US,

                                                    April 9, 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: Equinor US encourages 
     members of both the Senate and House to support a proposed 
     resolution of disapproval, under the Congressional Review Act 
     (CRA), to rescind the recent rule ``Oil and Natural Gas 
     Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and 
     Modified Sources Review'' and largely reinstate the Obama-era 
     regulations of methane emissions from the oil and gas sector.
       In 2019, we submitted comments to the US Environmental 
     Protection Agency (EPA) opposing the then proposed rule and 
     outlined our view that regulation of methane is a necessary 
     part of a comprehensive, economy-wide policy program to 
     address global climate change.
       In those comments, Equinor US noted that ``it is important 
     to have a federal regulatory `floor' that provides a 
     consistent, flexible, predictable, and comprehensive policy 
     framework for the sector.'' We stand by this policy approach 
     and believe that a return to the 2012 and 2016 standards, 
     until a more workable regulation or pieces of legislation, 
     considering modern technological developments, can be passed 
     and/or implemented.
       Equinor US appreciates the strong leadership of many in 
     Congress who recognize the role of responsibly-produced 
     natural gas in the energy transition and we believe that the 
     deployment of the Congressional Review Act to undo the 2020 
     rule is appropriate and in line with our own net-zero 
     ambitions.
           Sincerely,

                                              Chris L. Golden,

                                     Senior Vice President, Global
                                      Unconventionals, Equinor US.

                              {time}  0930

  I will just say that if we don't act now and if we let this rule 
stand, it is going to increase methane emissions in this country by 
nearly 1.6 tons by 2025. It will also result in a release of an 
additional 1.8 million tons of volatile organic compounds and more than 
16,000 tons of hazardous air pollutants right into the air that we 
breathe.
  If we are going to get serious about addressing the climate crisis, 
let's get serious about cutting our methane emissions. If we are going 
to get serious about protecting the public's health, let's pass this 
legislation today.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this important bill that has 
widespread support, not just from environmentalists, not just from the 
public, but from the oil industry itself.
  Let's do what the people have elected us to do. Let's put their 
health and safety, and the health and safety of our planet, above all 
else. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on S.J. Res. 14.
  Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S.J. Res. 14, which would 
increase the cost of energy for consumers and result in the loss of 
good-paying American jobs in our energy and manufacturing sectors.
  My district in northwest and west-central Ohio is home to over 60,000 
manufacturing jobs, with thousands more to come with recent 
announcements made in the past few weeks. One of the key factors that 
businesses consider when they make decisions about expanding or 
relocating is their ability to keep energy costs down while still being 
able to maintain profitable operations.
  Because of the American energy renaissance, fueled by lower domestic 
oil and natural gas production costs and the Trump administration's 
commonsense regulatory approach, we have seen more companies come to or 
return to the United States and bring with them high-paying, quality 
jobs to our communities.
  My fear is that by returning to the Obama EPA standards, we will be 
reasserting an outdated and burdensome regulatory regime that will 
sacrifice all the gains we have made in building up America's 
manufacturing sector.
  If the argument is about addressing climate change, then we really 
need to acknowledge the fact that the United States has been a global 
leader in emissions reduction since 2005. Since that time, emissions 
have fallen by more than 20 percent on a per capita basis.
  We should be focusing on innovative solutions and not accelerating 
the promulgation of cumbersome or duplicative regulations.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose S.J. Res. 14, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Peters), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee 
and a strong environmentalist.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. I am here 
to speak in favor of S.J. Res. 14, a resolution I co-led with 
Representatives DeGette and Lamb.
  We need to address methane emissions for several reasons, and today, 
I want to mention three.
  First, controlling methane is the single most important immediate 
step we can take to combat climate change, and that is because methane 
is a super-pollutant responsible for about 25 percent of the man-made 
warming we experience today. This is the low-hanging fruit in climate 
mitigation.
  My Republican colleagues never miss a chance--and you will hear this 
today--to point out that the natural gas revolution has contributed to 
our historic energy independence and cut our carbon dioxide emissions 
from energy production. That is right, but there is still a problem, 
and that problem is fugitive methane emissions.
  While burning natural gas can lower CO2 emissions by as 
much as 40 to 50 percent versus burning coal, almost all of that 
benefit, from a climate change perspective, is wiped out even with 
small leaks of methane, which we have today. Put simply, to reap the 
climate benefits of natural gas, which are often touted, we have to 
address methane emissions.
  Second, controlling methane is critical to the economic 
competitiveness of the U.S. natural gas industry. We should say thanks 
to the oil and gas industry when they do the right thing, but let's not 
fool ourselves by thinking that they are doing this because they are 
altruists. They are doing this because this is important to 
competitiveness. They are doing this because this makes American oil 
and gas more competitive. The reason is that world markets and domestic 
politics will not tolerate natural gas as a so-called bridge fuel 
unless the industry can prove, with real credibility and transparency, 
that it has fixed its methane problem.
  It is increasingly apparent that the viability of exporting U.S. 
liquefied natural gas, or LNG, depends on American policies to address 
methane pollution.

  Three of the largest LNG importers in the world, South Korea, Japan, 
and the European Union, have set goals to reduce emissions to net-zero 
by mid-century. These nations will demand verifiably clean gas from the 
United States.
  On top of this, investors are increasingly putting pressure on 
financial institutions and demanding climate-smart investment 
portfolios. Natural gas will solely be seen as a climate risk and not 
as a climate opportunity if methane leaks persist.
  We saw this recently in the cancellation by France of a deal for 
liquefied natural gas from Brownsville, $7 billion over 20 years. 
Ultimately, they were able to put that back together, but this is a 
sign of what is to come. If we don't get it right here, it is going to 
hurt business.

[[Page H3143]]

  They all sounded like businesses to me, what Ms. DeGette talked 
about. I am not from Texas or Oklahoma, but I have heard of Exxon, and 
I have heard of the American Petroleum Institute. If they are for it, 
it says something about where business is, what they think about 
competitiveness.
  Third, U.S. companies can lead the world in developing technologies 
to monitor and reduce methane emissions. Dealing with climate change is 
a science project. It is not a jobs program, but it does create a lot 
of jobs.
  Seventy-five percent of the manufacturing firms and 88 percent of 
service firms in the sector report that they would create more jobs if 
the national methane standards were reinstated.
  And the starting salary for methane mitigation jobs is nearly 10 
percent higher than the national average salary and can pay up to 
$140,000 a year.
  These companies represent the best of American innovation, creating 
economic opportunity and tackling global challenges at the same time.
  Today, we in Congress can soundly reject one of the most 
irresponsible environmental rollbacks of the prior administration. We 
can restore robust methane pollution standards, and we can clear a path 
for stronger protections in the future.
  I am proud to be a co-lead on this resolution. I encourage my 
colleagues to vote ``yes.'' This is a win-win-win for climate, public 
health, and U.S. industry.
  Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Johnson), my colleague.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this 
harmful methane resolution. It is just another example of this 
majority's and this administration's ever-changing ``support our global 
competitors at the expense of America's workers'' energy narrative.
  They say they don't want to ban hydraulic fracturing, interfere with 
American energy dominance, or increase supply chain dependence on 
China, but with their renewed Obama-era regulations, the cancellation 
of America's pipeline projects, and proposed bans on domestic plastics 
manufacturing, it is clear they have an ulterior energy plan that might 
as well have been written in Moscow or Beijing. And the American 
taxpayer is footing the bill.
  As oil and gas prices rise with our country reopening from the 
pandemic, there should be an increase in new wells being drilled and 
rigs being brought online to meet demand, but reports suggest this is 
not the case.
  Under pressure from radical environmentalists, coupled with the risks 
of an uncertain regulatory environment, American oil and gas producers 
are reducing drilling investments, costing jobs, and increasing the 
likelihood of continued price spikes at the pump and at the grocery 
store.
  While Democrats continue their assault on America's hard-earned 
global energy dominance, our adversaries have positioned themselves to 
take advantage of America's absence at the leadership table while also 
making a profit.
  In just the latest example, President Biden lifted sanctions on the 
completion of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, Putin's pipeline, which will 
be operational soon, sending Russian gas to Europe and billions into 
Putin's pocket.
  While he lifts sanctions on the Russians here at home, the President 
is, in effect, imposing sanctions on America's energy workers, all 
without Russia or China having to lift a finger.
  America's energy security--in effect, our national security--cannot 
depend on President Biden's weak leadership any longer.
  Mr. Speaker, you can just add this methane resolution to the long 
list of President Biden's predictably terrible policy solutions. Not 
only are we better than this, but we are smarter than this.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, this CRA is another act by the Biden 
administration to undercut American energy production. It is plain and 
simple.
  In committee, I offered an amendment to this resolution that would 
simply express Congress' disapproval for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, 
which would bring Russian gas to Europe.
  Now, for the entire Trump administration, Democrats were obsessed 
with imagined Russian influence over his policies, repeatedly calling 
him a Russian agent. If Trump had waived sanctions on a Russian company 
and a friend of Vladimir Putin, like President Biden just did, there 
would be an immediate call for an investigation. You guys would 
probably try to impeach him again.
  President Biden just killed the Keystone pipeline and continues to 
hamstring domestic producers, particularly smaller producers, killing 
American jobs and American energy production. It is truly baffling and 
illogical to me that he is willing to greenlight Russian energy 
projects while he kills American projects and kills American jobs.

  You know, the irony is that these energy-destroying policies actually 
have a negative impact on the environment. Think about this: Russian 
natural gas exported to Europe has a lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions 
profile that is 41 percent higher than American LNG exported to Europe. 
If Europe were to switch from dirtier Russian gas to clean-burning U.S. 
natural gas through LNG exports, global emissions would actually go 
down by 70 million tons each year.
  The United States is the number one oil and gas producer in the 
world, but we also lead the world in emissions reduction, something you 
all don't want to acknowledge.
  Putin would love nothing more than for America to be energy 
dependent, and President Biden is helping him achieve this goal. And 
Vladimir Putin is laughing.
  I urge my colleagues to defend American energy production and vote 
against this resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Lamb), one of the chief sponsors of this legislation.
  Mr. LAMB. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill.
  I would like to point out to my colleagues and anyone watching at 
home that I actually think that, today, the difference is not really 
between business and labor; it is not between regulation and 
nonregulation; it is really not even between Democrats and Republicans. 
I think what separates supporters of today's bill from its detractors 
are those who are thinking in the long term versus those who are 
thinking in the short term.
  In the long term, climate change truly is a threat to American 
national security. The Marine Corps, in which I served, has already had 
to consider whether it should move some of its historic bases, 
including Parris Island, perhaps the soul of the Marine Corps, simply 
due to sea level rise.
  The number of $1 billion catastrophic events in our country last year 
was 22. The average is seven over the last 40-year period.
  This is getting more expensive and more dangerous every year. In the 
long term, businesses that have to compete for capital and compete for 
market share in markets all around the world understand this, that this 
is our world now, that decarbonization is an absolute requirement to 
compete successfully both as the United States and as an individual 
business in the world that we are going into.
  The businesses that are thinking long term have already taken steps 
to do this, and the businesses that are thinking short term are 
pointing to the costs, the drawbacks, and the requirements, all of 
which are real.
  None of us stand here today to causally make anything more difficult 
on an American company that is trying to preserve jobs and succeed in 
this economy, but there are some things we just have to do.
  To use the words of an executive at Southwestern Energy Company:

       What some in the industry do not get is that we are 
     transitioning to a low-carbon economy. We need to show the 
     climate benefit of our product.

  Or, you could take the word of the chairwoman and president of BP 
America: ``We have to reduce methane emissions for natural gas to 
realize its full potential.''

[[Page H3144]]

  


                              {time}  0945

  And in my own hometown of Pittsburgh, we are happy to have 
headquartered the largest producer of natural gas in the United States, 
EQT. And even though under the Trump administration the EPA came to 
Pittsburgh to announce this absurd rollback of a rule that's good for 
business and good for the environment, EQT's president and CEO just 2 
days ago said that tackling methane represents an opportunity for the 
United States because our natural gas, American natural gas, can become 
the decarbonizing commodity of choice.
  So I have heard some of my friends on the other side point out, that, 
yes, the United States has done quite a lot already to reduce emissions 
and is doing more, and not all our competitors, like Russia and China, 
are doing the same.
  That is okay. Our market opportunity will come from attracting 
businesses among our allies, South Korea, Japan, the European Union. 
And if you just picture now a politics of the near future where the 
European Union is placing carbon tariffs on every product that comes in 
and out, lower carbon, American L&G will simply out-compete Russian 
products, or Iranian products, or any other product. That is the world 
that we live in now and that is what it will mean for us to compete.
  Today's bill is about one thing and one thing only: the national 
interest of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution.
  America's oil and gas industry is truly the backbone of the American 
economy, supporting 10 million jobs and contributing to billions of 
dollars of economic development in all 50 States.
  The energy industry is critical to our economic and national 
security, providing low and stable energy prices to American families 
and ensuring our independence from the Middle East and Russia.
  Despite these essential contributions, Democrats here are attempting 
to strap the industry with duplicative and unnecessary regulations. 
This resolution will contribute to American job losses and higher 
energy costs for American consumers, right on their energy bills.
  This will also not reduce worldwide emissions, and the reason is 
because China is building coal-fired power plants at a rate that 
outpaces the rest of the world combined.
  So what we are doing here with not only this resolution, but the 
other policies that my friends on the other side of the aisle are 
pushing, is we are actually hurting America, losing American jobs, 
giving up our energy independence so we are reliant on China and Russia 
and the Middle East.
  Why in the world would we do that? Mr. Lamb said this is for America. 
I totally disagree. This will hurt America and this bill will help 
China and Russia.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this resolution.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on 
each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 13\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Ohio has 18\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to implore this governing body 
to consider the consequences of using the Congressional Review Act as a 
vehicle to reinstate the harmful Obama-era regulations on methane 
emissions.
  American energy independence is key to the economic and national 
security of Hoosiers and, of course, of all Americans.
  These unnecessary and redundant regulations on new methane emissions 
will stifle responsible energy development and undercut our domestic 
energy potential. Because of the additional Federal regulations this 
would create, Hoosiers will pay more to heat their homes and to cook 
their meals, which we are already seeing right now.
  As a veteran of the petroleum industry, I know that free market 
innovation has always been the key driver to developing more cost-
effective and environmentally friendly uses of natural gas. Let's keep 
doing that.
  The burdensome regulations like the one before us today have never 
been the answer to improve our environment.
  Mr. Speaker, I came to Washington to protect Hoosiers' way of life 
back home in the Sixth District, and that is why I will continue to 
advocate for an all-of-the-above, not everything-but approach to 
energy.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this attempt to cripple 
American energy.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes now to the gentlewoman 
from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), who also represents one of my 
favorite places, Santa Fe.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I do welcome everybody in this 
Chamber to New Mexico, which is indeed one of the beautiful places that 
I get to call home. But you know what, New Mexico, my beautiful place I 
call home is also ground zero for the climate crisis.
  The West is experiencing a devastating drought, coupled with damaging 
wildfires, and these are caused, undoubtedly, by the climate crisis we 
are experiencing. My beautiful State is also home to both the Permian 
and the San Juan Basins. And because of that, we also have some of the 
highest levels of methane pollution. We also have some of the highest 
levels of asthma rates among our beautiful children.
  And every bit of methane that is released is wasted. It is wasted. It 
is a valuable resource that is released into the air by methane 
venting, through flaring, and simply because they have not maintained 
their sites.
  But methane that is released and flared and leaked is also a resource 
upon which my State cannot collect severance taxes, upon which my State 
cannot collect royalties. And so when that methane is leaked and flared 
and vented, those same children who are suffering from those high 
asthma rates, they lose the resources that should go into our public 
education.

  Mr. Speaker, I will say that my State--which needs every little 
nickel and dime, because we are a poor State, and which relies on those 
oil and gas revenues--what did we do? We recently enacted some of our 
own rules to curb methane emissions from oil and gas activity, and 
these rules are now considered to be the best in the country.
  If New Mexico can lead the way, we can follow it here in Congress, 
because taking action at the Federal level is reasonable, it is common 
sense.
  As Don Schreiber, one of my constituents and a rancher in New Mexico 
who has those issues on his site says, ``New Mexicans built our oil and 
gas infrastructure, and these same communities can now design, 
manufacture, and install the technology to monitor and prevent methane 
emissions.''
  Because you know what? Regulation spurs innovation, and we are 
looking forward to that innovation and those good jobs that will come 
from the methane regulation that we will have now when we overturn this 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, Senator Heinrich, for 
introducing and advancing this legislation in the Senate, and my great 
colleagues here, Representatives DeGette, Lamb, and Pallone for 
advancing and championing the cause of my wonderful children and 
students and State here on this rule.
  Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce).
  Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this partisan resolution is unnecessary for a number of 
reasons. At its core, this is a solution that is looking for a problem.
  The oil industry already is voluntarily reducing methane emissions 
and the United States has led the world in reducing greenhouse gas 
emissions in the last two decades. Innovation is the ultimate answer to 
cutting emissions. We cannot afford to stifle advancement.
  As a Nation, we cannot regulate our way to a cleaner environment. 
Most importantly, new methane regulations are duplicative of existing 
Federal and

[[Page H3145]]

State regulations under the Clean Air Act for volatile organic 
compounds known as VOCs.
  The EPA determined in an earlier rulemaking that ``rescinding the 
methane limits will not actually change the amount of methane emissions 
reductions.''
  This resolution is not about methane emissions or climate change. The 
truth is that we already regulate methane. The EPA and the States have 
strong standards in place for volatile organic compounds and methane.
  The existing standards and the pollution control equipment installed 
at oil and gas facilities help to manage both methane and VOCs because 
they are both produced from the same source and have a similar 
chemistry and behavior.
  The real intent of this misguided resolution is simple--the oil and 
gas sector is just the tip of the iceberg--the purpose is to give the 
EPA authority to use Section 111 of the Clean Air Act to regulate every 
other sector of our economy.
  Congress must continue to embrace the bottom-up innovation that will 
result in leaps in efficiency far greater than any mandate, instead of 
expensive overregulation that will take money out of working Americans' 
pockets.
  As a Nation, we can do better. As a Congress, we must do better.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on this 
resolution.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Dakota (Mr. Armstrong).
  Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, you can put American behind Equinor. It 
doesn't make it an American company. It is a Norwegian company that 
used to be called Statoil; now it is called Equinor that has American 
operations.
  You can put American behind Shell. It doesn't make it an American 
company. It is a Dutch company who has its own legal problems in its 
own court that has American operations. I appreciate both of them.
  At times they have done business in North Dakota; they have been 
great corporate citizens. You can talk about Exxon and you can talk 
about BP; you can talk about Shell. But let's be careful when we talk 
about all companies big and small that support this industry, because 
the one caveat with all of these companies--and this is true--the vast 
majority of their production does not occur onshore and most often does 
not even occur in the United States.

  And so what does that mean? They are not subject to this CRA.
  Small and medium-sized gas companies do not support this regulation. 
North Dakota oil and gas companies do not support this regulation. And 
it is not because they are interested in polluting. It is because they 
don't want to be duplicatively regulated from the wellhead to the 
market.
  States are already doing this. We have heard this from New Mexico. 
North Dakota is regulating this. We have our industrial cushion; we 
have our DEQ.
  But the real problem with this EPA regulation and these Obama-era 
policies coming back is not only its duplicative regulation, but it 
actually stifles innovation; because the one thing State regulators can 
do significantly better than the Federal Government is respond 
quickly--adapt. So when an industry comes to you and says, Hey, I have 
a way to do this better, they will work with you, they will get it 
done. We see it happen every day in the Oil Patch in western North 
Dakota.
  The problem is Federal regulation at its very core is unwieldy, it is 
burdensome, and it gives a tremendous market share advantage to large 
companies over smaller companies.
  We need to stop duplicative regulation. We need to allow industries 
to regulate and States to innovate and regulate. And we know this 
because we have heard it a lot. If the market is demanding, companies 
are going to do it. Why do we need the burdensome Federal regulation?

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Peters).
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to a couple things I 
heard.
  One is this tip of the iceberg idea that we are doing something 
beyond methane by doing this. Of course, that is not how it works 
around here. The laws are specifically written around what we are 
doing. We are only voting on this. I can tell you that if we were doing 
more than this, we might get a different response from the oil and gas 
industry than we have seen. That is not a real argument.
  The other thing is that this is somehow cooked up by the Biden 
administration as a way to undercut oil and gas. Again, I want to go 
through all of the names that Ms. DeGette went through of the companies 
and organizations that support this regulation, but it is hard to argue 
that the American Petroleum Institute is anything other than American.
  It is also hard to argue, even with a company that is based someplace 
else, that they would be arguing to burden, as it is characterized, 
their United States operations with these regulations. There would be 
no incentive for them to do that, no matter where the corporate 
headquarters is based.
  The fact is that these companies see this as a way to be competitive, 
and it is not unprecedented. One thing we did on the committee last 
term that became part of the year-end spending plan was the American 
Innovation and Manufacturers Act, which regulated HFCs. If you recall, 
the industry supported the institution of standards around HFCs so that 
it could compete successfully with manufacturers around the world that 
are building from the same standards.
  It was actually helpful for them to have a uniform standard that they 
could innovate around, and that is why Republicans and Democrats 
supported that and it became part of a bipartisan end-of-year package. 
We are in the same situation here where businesses are saying, set a 
standard here.
  Don't tell us that we are going to get one set of regulations, by the 
way, in Colorado, and virtually no regulations in Texas. We are not 
being duplicative at all. What we are doing is setting a standard. 
Let's set a Federal standard. Let's do it at the request of the 
industry and with the cooperation of the industry to make sure we get 
it right.
  And I guess the other remarkable thing that is implied by all of this 
discussion is that we are talking about regulating methane out of oil 
and gas production. No one is talking about banning oil and gas. We 
wouldn't have to be talking about methane at all if we were talking 
about that. In fact, we are trying to take oil and gas and get it 
right, to get it competitive, and get it to be climate-friendly for our 
future generations.
  So I thought that the one glaring omission from my colleagues' 
arguments is: How do you explain so much support from American oil and 
gas companies for this regulation?
  I wouldn't suggest that it is unanimous. I would say probably it is 
not. But to dismiss it is really, I think, missing the point. And I 
think it is obvious that this industry sees this as an advantage in 
terms of competitiveness going forward, as Mr. Lamb said as well.
  Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).
  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this 
Congressional Review Act resolution, which would nullify a rule put in 
place by President Trump that contributed to our American energy 
domestic dominance.
  Unfortunately, for Democrats, this misguided solution in search of a 
nonexistent problem trades American livelihoods for radical activist 
priorities.
  The United States leads the world in emissions reductions, thanks to 
the natural gas revolution. Our emissions declined significantly over 
the last few decades, while natural gas production spiked by more than 
50 percent, proving that renewable resources like natural gas provide a 
clean, low-cost energy alternative.
  This CRA will only limit our domestic supply and force us to look 
abroad, once again, empowering OPEC and Russia to determine the price 
of living our daily lives. As the ranking member of the Energy and 
Minerals Resources Subcommittee, I know that our domestic energy 
producers are the best in the world.

[[Page H3146]]

  With many being small business owners, they are a testament to 
American innovation as they deliver us low-cost energy while reducing 
emissions. We need to return to American energy first policies that 
empower our workers and American innovation, and not failed policies 
that hand the keys over to our rivals.
  Mr. Speaker, therefore, I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Herrell).
  Ms. HERRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise also in strong opposition to this 
resolution, as it is yet another attempt by my Democratic colleagues to 
nickel and dime the most essential industry in my district out of 
business.
  The energy policies of the Biden administration have been a complete 
and utter disaster. American jobs are being lost and gas prices are 
soaring due to a retreat from the policies of the Trump administration 
that created American energy dominance.
  Small and midsize oil and gas producers employ tens of thousands of 
New Mexicans and contribute millions of dollars in revenues to my 
State's budget. These essential businesses are the ones that will be 
most negatively impacted by the passage of this resolution.
  Small and midsize producers are already under attack by the ban on 
new oil and gas leases on Federal lands put in place by this 
administration, which a Federal judge ruled to be illegal just last 
week.
  Instead of approving foreign pipelines and implementing duplicative 
and costly regulations, which strengthen the hands of our enemies, this 
administration and this House should be focused on creating jobs here 
at home and lowering energy costs for all Americans.
  I, and many other of my Republican colleagues, have put forward 
commonsense pieces of legislation to ensure economic and environmental 
sustainability for our constituents. This legislation does just the 
opposite.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose this legislation and to 
join us on this side of the aisle in fighting to continue the American 
energy dominance agenda of the previous administration that resulted in 
a cleaner environment and a vibrant economy.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez).
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to bring to this 
body's attention that this resolution will actually put New Mexico on 
the same playing field as the rest of the country because, as I noted 
earlier, New Mexico has now adopted some of the strictest methane 
regulations in the country.
  And those regulations, similar to what we are seeing now, were 
adopted in consultation and with the support of many in the oil and gas 
industry who participated in the rulemaking, who recognize that it is 
in their best interest to operate in a manner that is safe, in a manner 
that does not lose this precious resource. That is how we came to our 
regulations in New Mexico.
  But we are at a disadvantage in New Mexico because, as it was noted 
earlier, if some States have nice, good regulations with regard to 
methane emissions and others don't, then in the Permian Basin, for 
example, what would stop a company from saying: I am going to drill in 
Texas and not in New Mexico because they are protecting our environment 
in New Mexico?
  So what I look forward to seeing is having New Mexico be at the same 
place as the rest of the country, so that we are not losing our 
drilling to Texas, who doesn't have it. Mr. Speaker, I like the idea of 
everybody has the same set of rules.
  Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington).
  Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is in a long line of attacks from a hostile 
administration, and some of my Democratic colleagues, against oil and 
gas, conventional fuels, which has blessed our country with a safe, 
affordable abundant supply of energy. It fuels our economy. It keeps 
energy costs low for consumers and working families. It gives us energy 
independence.
  In addition to the Paris climate and millions of jobs going away in 
the future as we implement that, pipeline and critical infrastructure 
cancelations, public land drilling moratoriums, weaponizing the tax 
code--because that is what is next--as they do away with ordinary and 
necessary depreciation and general business expenses, the posture from 
my colleagues is hostility toward an industry that has been so good to 
this country and to working families.
  In this case, we would go back to the Obama-era regulatory regime 
that is costly and burdensome, not to the multinational oil and gas 
companies. They welcome it because they will just increase their market 
share. It is the mom and pop, small business, independent producers who 
make up 85 percent of the production of oil and gas. They can't take 
this. They will shut their doors. We will shutter family-owned small 
businesses.
  And for what?
  Trace amounts of methane gas. The cost benefit does not make any 
sense. This is a sledgehammer-to-a-fly approach. The real emitters on 
methane gas, if that is your goal, downstream, large-scale industrial 
utilities, and other industrial operations, that is where we ought to 
focus. That is what the Trump administration focused on, gave room for 
innovation, respected State regulation, and that partnership and 
Federalism.
  Mr. Speaker, that is my position. I implore my colleagues to join me 
in opposing this and get back to some reasonable approaches to 
stewarding our environment and economic growth.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 6 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger).
  Mr. PFLUGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise vehemently opposed to the Democrats' 
latest move in their war on American energy independence.
  Today's misguided resolution calling for additional onerous 
regulations from the Obama administration era to be reimposed on the 
fossil fuel industry will only lead to a lack of energy security.

  Just 2 years ago, the United States became the number one producer of 
oil and natural gas in the world, thanks to President Trump's 
administration's deregulation that allowed private energy innovators 
and entrepreneurs to flourish.
  I represent the Permian Basin, and let me just state for the record 
that Texas does have methane regulations, a completely false accusation 
that I have heard three times in this debate. Energy security is 
national security. And now we risk losing our competitive edge on the 
world stage with needless regulations that will hurt small and 
independent producers and crush innovation; the same private innovation 
that has allowed the United States to lead the way in reducing methane 
emissions to a 20-year low.
  Mr. Speaker, our Nation relies on affordable, reliable energy; the 
same affordable, reliable energy that has raised a billion people out 
of poverty in the last 10 years--a billion people out of poverty.
  Today, global demand is going to continue to increase. We cannot 
allow foreign adversaries, like China and Russia and others, to profit 
off of our overly regulated State. Let me say again, energy security is 
national security.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this 
resolution and standing up for American energy independence.

                              {time}  1015

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close if the gentleman is.
  Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, 
and I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is just the tip of the iceberg. EPA will use the 
resolution to clear the way for other sources without formally 
establishing that a

[[Page H3147]]

pollutant significantly contributes to harmful air pollution as a 
predicate for new regulations. Manufacturing, paper, plastics, metals, 
and virtually every other industry in America certainly could be next.
  We must not allow overregulation to crush the energy jobs that 
America wants and America needs.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is quickly becoming clear that the greatest potential 
to curb methane, and thus climate change, in the next decade is in the 
fossil fuel sector.
  The U.N. Environment Program and the Climate and Clean Air Coalition 
published the ``Global Methane Assessment'' just last month, and they 
found that fast and ambitious methane mitigation is one of the best 
strategies available today to deliver immediate and long-lasting 
benefits for climate, agriculture, human, and ecosystem health.
  They also found that rapid and dramatic methane pollution cuts could 
both slow global warming and prevent a quarter-million deaths every 
year.
  Also, reduction measures used to curb methane from the oil and gas 
sector would also cost the least or, in some cases, even have negative 
costs, as captured methane can be resold for revenue in the oil and gas 
sector.
  These relatively inexpensive methane reduction methods are possible 
with currently available technology, like fixing leaks in gas pipelines 
and stopping venting in gas drilling.
  These findings support what many already know to be true, that 
ambitiously addressing methane pollution can yield tremendous climate, 
public health, and financial--and I stress ``and financial''--benefits 
across the economy. This is why we see most of the oil and gas 
companies supporting this resolution.
  Disapproving a rule that would lead to an increase in methane 
pollution, and reinstating the 2016 rule's commonsense and cost-
effective safeguards, should be an easy ``yes'' vote. For that reason, 
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am here today to oppose S.J. Res. 14, the Methane rule 
Congressional Review Act repeal. The Democrat majority and the 
Administration are not passing this legislation for climate change, 
they are passing it to support big oil and foreign petrol dictators.
   We are in a weird place in this Nation when the action of hurting 
American energy development in favor of foreign development is 
celebrated by the majority, but that is where we are today. While my 
Majority colleagues are celebrating this as a massive win, the reality 
is the only people winning from this action are people who don't need 
wins, and the losers are the American people.
  By repealing this common sense balanced rule, this Congress will now 
put the agencies in a place with fewer tools, fewer options, and on a 
path for a rule which will directly harm most of our nation's oil and 
gas producers, while leaving the world's worst actors free to continue 
polluting the globe. America's oil industry isn't made up of supermajor 
oil players, much of America's oil comes from small and mid-sized 
producers. The rules proposed by the Obama Administration would have 
decimated that sector of the oil and gas industry with burdensome costs 
and massive paperwork requirements, all for a fractional impact on 
methane emissions. The rule drafted by the Trump Administration 
recognized this and would have protected all industry while at the same 
time working to lower our national methane emissions. However, as a 
result of this action today the Democrat Majority is deciding that they 
want to side against small businesses and join the side of Big Oil 
pushing costly, burdensome, and ineffective methane regulations on all 
American producers. The result will be an oil and gas industry 
dominated by bigger and bigger oil companies using their size and 
buying ability to squeeze out small producers.
  But Big Oil isn't the only winner Democrats are picking today. 
Foreign petrol dictators are winners as well. Not a single foreign 
producer is obligated to meet our methane rules for their production. 
So while the result of this bill will be to squeeze small oil and gas 
producers in Bakersfield and Kern, California, the foreign, Russian and 
Saudi imports that make up a majority of the California oil consumption 
will be untouched. There isn't a single Aramco, Saudi, oil well in the 
world that will comply with the methane rule that will be produced as a 
result of this action today. But there will be millions and billions of 
barrels of Saudi oil consumed in California over the next decades.
  Again, don't let the majority fool you today, this action isn't about 
reducing methane emissions or impacting climate change, this action is 
about Big Government supporting Big Oil and giving foreign petrol 
dictatorships an advantage over American producers. That is why I am 
voting no on this bill and urge all my colleagues to do the same.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered on the joint 
resolution.
  The question is on the third reading of the joint resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229, 
nays 191, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 185]

                               YEAS--229

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bourdeaux
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown
     Brownley
     Bush
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fitzpatrick
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel, Lois
     Gaetz
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garbarino
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs (CA)
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jones
     Kahele
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (CA)
     Kim (NJ)
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Luria
     Lynch
     Mace
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Manning
     Mast
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meijer
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newman
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Reed
     Rice (NY)
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Salazar
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Suozzi
     Swalwell
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Underwood
     Upton
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--191

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice (OK)
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carl
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Comer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fleischmann
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Gallagher
     Garcia (CA)
     Gibbs

[[Page H3148]]


     Gimenez
     Gohmert
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hartzler
     Herrell
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Jackson
     Jacobs (NY)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Obernolte
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Valadao
     Van Duyne
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Barr
     Carter (GA)
     Fulcher
     Gosar
     Graves (LA)
     Hern
     Issa
     Johnson (LA)
     Norcross
     Trone

                              {time}  1048

  Mr. SESSIONS changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the joint resolution was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. NORCROSS. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted 
``YEA'' on Rollcall No. 185.
  Stated against:
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 185.


                      MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO

                   HOUSE RESOLUTION 8, 117TH CONGRESS

     Aderholt (Moolenaar)
     Amodei (Balderson)
     Barragan (Clark (MA))
     Beatty (Lawrence)
     Buchanan (Walorski)
     Burgess (Jackson)
     Castor (FL) (Demings)
     Crist (Deutch)
     DeFazio (Davids (KS))
     DeSaulnier (Matsui)
     Escobar (Speier)
     Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
     Gimenez (Malliotakis)
     Gottheimer (Panetta)
     Graves (MO) (Wagner)
     Grijalva (Garcia (IL))
     Himes (Clark (MA))
     Hoyer (Brown)
     Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
     Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
     Kuster (Clark (MA))
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Lieu (Beyer)
     Lowenthal (Beyer)
     McHenry (Budd)
     Meng (Clark (MA))
     Miller (WV) (Walorski)
     Mullin (Cole)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Pappas (Clark (MA))
     Payne (Pallone)
     Reed (Gonzalez (OH))
     Rice (NY) (Peters)
     Ruiz (Aguilar)
     Rush (Underwood)
     Sewell (DelBene)
     Sires (Pallone)
     Stefanik (Katko)
     Strickland (DelBene)
     Suozzi (Panetta)
     Swalwell (Gomez)
     Titus (Connolly)
     Tlaib (Kildee)
     Torres (NY) (Auchincloss)
     Van Drew (Norman)
     Veasey (Fletcher)
     Vela (Gomez)
     Velazquez (Jeffries)
     Wasserman Schultz (Deutch)
     Waters (Takano)
     Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
     Wilson (SC) (Norman)
     Young (Joyce (OH))

                          ____________________