[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))
____________________