[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 112 (Monday, June 28, 2021)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E707]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      POSITION ON THE METHANE RULE

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. GARRET GRAVES

                              of louisiana

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, June 28, 2021

  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I was unable to take part in 
debating and voting on the revocation of the previous administration's 
rule governing methane emissions due to meetings with the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs to address long-overlooked issues impacting South 
Louisiana's veterans. The Baton Rouge VA outpatient clinic in my 
district is undersized and not well suited to the needs of the Capital 
Region's veterans. Multiple administrations have highlighted the need 
to authorize a new lease--but it hasn't happened and getting veterans 
timely access to quality health care remains a top priority for me.
  Had I been in Washington, D.C., I would have voted against S.J. Res 
14 to repeal the ``Oil and Natural Gas Standards for New, 
Reconstructed, and Modified Sources Review.'' We cannot afford to move 
backwards on President Trump's policies that put American energy first.
  I support efforts to reduce methane emissions. I support smart 
regulations that result in reducing methane emissions. But I do not 
support an approach that results in stifling innovation and creates 
barriers to cost-effectively reducing methane emissions.
  The United States has led the world in reducing greenhouse gas 
emissions and investing in innovation that will ensure continued 
reductions in emissions here and around the world. We produce resources 
and goods with a carbon profile envied around the world--that includes 
oil and gas. As global demand increases, as it is projected to do for 
natural gas, America should be supplying that demand. Especially if you 
care about global emissions and climate change.
  With the deployment of innovative technologies, the use of our 
resources will become even cleaner. That's why we need a regime that 
encourages innovation and incentivizes the development and deployment 
of technologies to mitigate and monitor methane emissions. Putting up 
barriers or making U.S. production of resources more expensive will 
drive up global emissions because it gives the competitive advantage in 
the global market to higher emitting resources--like those coming from 
Russia and China.
  This CRA is not about reducing methane emissions, it's not about 
climate change, and it isn't about national security. It is solely 
about reducing energy choices. Moreover, this is about regulating an 
entire sector of the U.S. economy out of business. The majority is not 
shy about stating their goal--whether through an outright ban or death 
by a thousand cuts. And what is most insidious is that the anti-
American oil and gas agenda doesn't apply to fossil energy outside the 
United States.
  In fact, their actions benefit and subsidize fossil energy in other 
countries. You don't have to believe me, just look at their actions: 
we've seen cheers when the administration stops the construction of 
pipelines at home, actions which cost thousands of jobs for American 
families, reduce our energy security, and ultimately result in higher 
global emissions. Democrats sat on their hands as President Biden 
green-lit the Nord Stream 2 pipeline to carry natural gas from Russia 
to our allies in Europe--resulting in a stronger Putin and higher 
global emissions than if the United States had supplied that energy.
  The majority voted against an amendment condemning the Russia action 
and Russian pipeline. Emissions never factored into their vote. In 
fact, Russian natural gas exported to Europe has a lifecycle greenhouse 
gas emission profile at least 42 percent higher than U.S. liquefied 
natural gas exported to Europe from Louisiana. Their singular intent 
was to reduce demand for an American resource by increasing the supply 
of Russian natural gas to our allies.
  At home, their opposition to pipelines has resulted in increased use 
of higher-emitting heating oil and the importing of significantly 
higher-emitting natural gas from Russia. And while opposing lower 
emission production in America, progressives have called for increased 
oil production in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Russia.
  Don't believe me? Let me read a quote from a letter signed by several 
members of the current majority to President Trump in 2018: ``Today we 
call on you to use all of your authority to . . . pressure the 
Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and 
cooperating countries to Increase World Oil Supplies.'' That letter was 
signed by, among others, the current Leader of the Senate, Chuck 
Schumer, and the author of the Green New Deal, Ed Markey--the same 
crowd who advocated for banning American production of oil, American 
pipelines, and regulating out of existence any remaining American oil 
and gas. If this were about emissions, they wouldn't be advocating for 
increased production from higher polluting countries while reducing 
production from the more carbon efficient United States.
  Members of the majority have repeatedly voted against amendment after 
amendment that would have halted action if the action would result in 
increased global emissions. Let me say that again, they voted against 
lower emissions. I know because they were my amendments. It doesn't end 
there: in the infrastructure bill which we are set to consider next 
week, there is a designation of ``high performing'' states based on 
climate policies. We offered an amendment during committee markup that 
would remove that designation if those same policies resulted in a 
disproportionate negative impact on disadvantaged communities. This 
amendment was voted down. Under the current text of the Invest Act, 
states that are being sued by civil rights groups for climate policies 
that hurt disadvantaged communities will be rewarded .
  They have voted against amendments that would have clamped down on 
child labor in Africa and slave labor in China, because it's 
inconsistent with the progressive anti-U.S. energy agenda. For every 
ton of emissions reduced by the United States, China has increased its 
emissions by 4 tons--and yet, policies coming from the other side will 
export jobs to China, increase global emissions, and increase American 
dependence on China.
  Again, don't believe me? Let me read from a report put out by the 
Senate Democrats' Climate Committee: ``As we institute domestic 
decarbonization policies that increase overall production costs . . . 
we could see U.S. companies shift their production to countries that 
are less restrictive on carbon emissions . . . This will not only lead 
to an increase in total global emissions, but also the outsourcing of 
American jobs.'' And they haven't included a single policy in any of 
their climate bills to counteract this result of outsourcing American 
jobs and increasing global emissions. Is it any wonder why we question 
their motives for this action today?
  There is a way to effectively address methane emissions without 
costing jobs and increasing global emissions. I am on board with that 
discussion. But it isn't about that. It's about one more of the 
thousand cuts to destroy American jobs, reduce American 
competitiveness, and increase global emissions.

                          ____________________