    [Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 38 (Wednesday, February 26, 2025)]
    [House]
    [Pages H846-H853]
    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 ``WASTE EMISSIONS CHARGE
      FOR PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS: PROCEDURES FOR FACILITATING
                 COMPLIANCE, INCLUDING NETTING AND EXEMPTIONS''

      Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 161, I call
    up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 35) providing for congressional
    disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule
    submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``Waste
    Emissions Charge for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems: Procedures for
    Facilitating Compliance, Including Netting and Exemptions,'' 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 161, the joint
    resolution is considered read.
      The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

                                  H.J. Res. 35

           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 Environmental
         Protection Agency relating to ``Waste Emissions Charge for
         Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems: Procedures for
         Facilitating Compliance, Including Netting and Exemptions''
         (89 Fed. Reg. 91094 (November 18, 2024)), and such rule shall
         have no force or effect.

      The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for
    1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
    minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their
    respective designees.
      The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith) and the gentleman from New
    Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.
      The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).

                                 General Leave

      Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
    may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
    include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 35.
      The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
    gentleman from Virginia?
      There was no objection.
      Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
      Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 35, a
    resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of
    title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental
    Protection Agency relating to ``Waste Emissions Charge for Petroleum
    and Natural Gas Systems: Procedures for Facilitating Compliance,
    Including Netting and Exemptions,'' sponsored by the gentleman from
    Texas (Mr. Pfluger).
      H.J. Res. 35 will repeal the disastrous rule by the Biden
    administration that punishes our small and midsize energy producers
    here in the United States. The so-called waste emissions charge starts
    at $900 per metric ton for last year's reported methane emissions. It
    increases to $1,200 per metric ton for 2025 emissions, and it increases
    one more time to $1,500 per metric ton of emissions for 2026 and the
    years thereafter.
      There are about 9,000 small and midsize independent petroleum
    drillers in the United States. These mostly small operations are
    responsible for developing 91 percent of oil and gas wells, producing
    83 percent of America's oil and 90 percent of our country's natural
    gas. We should be thanking them, not punishing them.
      Mr. Speaker, if we do not act, American jobs and energy production
    will be lost. This is really, for all intents and purposes, a punitive
    tax on natural gas. These folks are not our enemy. They help make the
    fuel that we use to heat our homes, et cetera.
      Mr. Speaker, I and other Republicans are not opposed to the
    regulation of methane. I see it as an asset that should not be wasted
    when it is practicably able to be captured, but there are cases where
    it is not practicable. However, we are opposed to bureaucratic
    overreach that, intended or not, will force some of these small
    producers out of business, making the energy supply in the United
    States less.
      We should instead be making rules that work with industry to
    facilitate the progress that our country's energy producers have
    already made in reducing emissions.
      Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution,
    and I reserve the balance of my time.
      Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
      Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 35, a resolution that
    will drive up energy prices in the United States. It is a radical
    measure that will gut one of the Inflation Reduction Act's most
    critical programs: the Methane Emissions Reduction Program.
      With this resolution, Republicans are doubling down on their
    commitment to lining the pockets of their special interest corporate
    polluter friends at Americans' expense.
      Of course, we shouldn't be surprised that the House Republicans
    continue to prioritize billionaires and big corporations over everyday
    Americans. Just last night, Republicans moved forward with a budget
    that includes devastating, life-altering cuts to Medicaid and food
    assistance for our kids, our seniors, and our veterans, all so
    Republicans can give tax breaks to their billionaire buddies.
      Mr. Speaker, H.J. Res. 35 is just another giveaway that saddles
    Americans with higher energy bills, plain and simple, all to help
    Republicans' corporate polluter friends. What is more, repealing the
    Environmental Protection Agency's methane polluter fee slashes revenue
    for the government, meaning this bill will cost American taxpayers a
    whopping $7.2 billion.
      This is really shameful and a massive waste of money and resources
    because the reality is that, without the methane polluter fee, it is
    cheaper for the oil and gas industry to waste valuable methane rather
    than install or upgrade equipment to control that pollution.
      Currently, oil and gas companies waste enough natural gas from leaks,
    venting, and flaring to meet the energy demand of 14 million households
    every year. In other words, the oil and gas industry is throwing $2
    billion worth of American energy down the drain every year, which
    Americans then have to pay for.
      That wasted methane has grave consequences for our environment and
    for public health. Methane is an extremely dangerous greenhouse gas
    that accounts for nearly a third of today's global warming and is a key
    contributor to smog.
      That is why key pollution control programs, such as the Methane
    Emissions Reduction Program, are so pivotal. The program includes a
    suite of incentives to drive down excess methane pollution, including
    $1.5 billion to help industry reduce methane emissions.
      Mr. Speaker, at the heart of this program is the methane polluter
    fee, which is targeted by the resolution before us today. This fee is
    meant to correct the market failure that makes it cheaper for operators
    to waste methane rather than capture and sell it. It ensures that
    polluters pay for their own wasted energy and the harm that it causes,
    not American consumers.
      It is not a tax. It is not at all. Unlike a tax, the methane polluter
    fee only applies to wasted methane above specific thresholds. These
    achievable thresholds are based on the oil and gas industry's own
    climate commitments and methane reduction targets. I have to stress
    that we worked with the industry when we were putting this together as
    part of the Inflation Reduction Act.

      EPA then applies a fee for wasted methane that exceeds these
    thresholds, and the best part is that companies could avoid the fee
    altogether by simply not wasting methane. Members should understand
    that they don't even pay the fee if they don't waste the methane, and
    we actually have a fund to help them upgrade their equipment so that
    they do not waste the methane and actually improve the situation.
      Many industry leaders are already meeting these thresholds that H.J.
    Res. 35 is trying to get rid of. Essentially, what my colleagues are
    seeing here is that the good actors are actually doing the right thing.
    They are not wasting methane anymore. Some of them have gotten help in
    order to upgrade their equipment, and then they don't pay any fee.

    [[Page H847]]

      It is the bad actors, the dirtiest oil and gas companies and
    producers, I should say, that this helps because they don't want to
    have to upgrade. They don't care. They just want to pollute. That is
    really the unfortunate part of all of this. Instead of encouraging the
    good actors, we encourage the bad actors.
      Mr. Speaker, addressing methane pollution can yield tremendous
    financial, climate, and public health benefits across the country. By
    incentivizing companies to capture lost revenue, the Methane Emissions
    Reduction Program and the methane polluter fee spur American
    innovation, strengthen businesses, and boost local economies.
      In fact, in the 10 years between 2014 and 2024, there was an 88
    percent increase in manufacturing firms in the methane mitigation
    industry, so this mitigation spurs industry and growth in the economy.
      This sector employs thousands of Americans across the Nation with
    high-quality, good-paying jobs. Yet, in my opinion, this Republican
    resolution threatens those jobs and undermines American innovation.
      It also not only blocks the EPA from implementing the program's waste
    emissions charge, also known as the methane polluter fee, but also
    prevents the EPA from ever taking similar action in the future.
      Controlling methane pollution is a win-win for all Americans. It is
    unfortunate that my Republican colleagues are willing to throw all of
    this away in order to line the pockets of their corporate polluter
    friends, raising costs on hardworking Americans and the middle class in
    the process.
      Make no mistake: President Trump, Elon Musk, and congressional
    Republicans have no intention of doing anything to lower energy bills
    for Americans, and H.J. Res. 35 is just the latest proof of that.
      Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the
    balance of my time.

                                  {time}  1230

      Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
    Texas (Mr. Weber).
      Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is a new day in America. Once
    again, House Republicans are standing up for hardworking Texans and
    Americans by rolling back another harmful rule pushed through by the
    Obiden administration.
      Mr. Speaker, I call him ``Obiden'' because I think he is Obama's
    third term.
      This latest scheme slaps new taxes on our energy producers, the very
    folks who keep our gas prices low and our economy running strong. We
    are not going to sit back and let the Obiden administration strangle
    our energy industry with unnecessary costs.
      It is absolutely time to strike down this destructive natural gas tax
    and protect America's energy independence.
      Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle want to claim that
    President Biden--I will use his name--his natural gas tax won't hurt
    producers who are ``in compliance.'' I have a news flash for you. That
    is a bait and switch, Mr. Speaker.
      Under the current waste emissions charge regulation, the so-called
    regulatory compliance exemption only applies if methane emission
    regulations are in place in every applicable State.
      Here is the catch: Many States haven't adopted these regulations,
    which means producers can't even comply with these rules that don't
    exist.
      In other words, the ``exemption'' isn't really an exemption at all.
    It is just another backdoor tax designed to squeeze the very industry
    that keeps America powered.
      This isn't just bureaucratic red tape, Mr. Speaker. It is a direct
    attack on Texas jobs, Texas families, and energy producers that fuel
    our Nation.
      Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support my colleagues in striking down
    this burdensome tax and standing up for the hardworking men and women
    of the Lone Star State and our great Nation.
      Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New
    York (Mr. Tonko), the ranking member of our Environment Subcommittee.
      Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
      Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition, strong opposition, to this
    resolution.
      For the past 5 weeks, Elon Musk and congressional Republicans have
    been running around calling any Federal spending debt they don't like
    waste. The empowerment exercise of Elon Musk is a rather interesting
    saga. He is a person who did not have a background check, was not
    confirmed or had a process of approval through the United States
    Senate, and is functioning through a ghost agency of government
    oversight of efficiency. He is now the determinant to go forward and
    reduce government in a way that is not utilizing the strength of
    inspectors general or institutional memory that can best guide the
    academics to do that with the greatest degree of efficiency.

                             Parliamentary Inquiry

      Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
      The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from New York yield for a
    parliamentary inquiry?
      Mr. TONKO. Sure.
      The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia will state his
    parliamentary inquiry.
      Mr. GRIFFITH. When debating this resolution, H.J. Res. 35, is it
    appropriate to discuss superfluous matters to the matter at hand
    currently on the floor?
      The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under clause 1 of rule XVII, remarks in
    debate must be confined to the subject under debate, in this case, the
    pending legislation.
      Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
      Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I was using that to set in context my
    comments because, again, waste addressed in an efficiency exercise is
    important, but ironically, today, we are finally on the House floor
    talking about an EPA rule that reduces actual, literal waste, and
    Republicans want to undo it.
      The oil and gas industry is the largest industrial source of methane
    pollution. Each year, oil and gas operators emit the equivalent of $2
    billion worth of wasted natural gas, and that can come via venting,
    perhaps flaring, and leaks. The methane polluter fee makes certain that
    companies are held accountable for their waste.
      This is an effort to provide for efficiency for the general public
    because methane waste is not only exacerbating climate change, but it
    is also bad for Americans, especially through their energy bills.
      Consumers still pay for natural gas that is wasted, but this
    resolution will let those polluters off the hook. It also hurts
    American companies that are innovating new technologies enabling leak
    detection and repair, creating whole new pollution reduction
    industries.
      These new technologies are turning waste into economic value, all
    while protecting our environment.

      I suggest that that is an exercise we should all embrace, but oil and
    gas industry polluters aren't willing to take meaningful mitigation
    actions voluntarily if it eats into their bottom lines.
      It is why we have historically enacted environmental laws to make
    sure polluters pay for the damage that they do to the public. The
    methane polluter fee is the next chapter of that environmental success
    story by incentivizing companies to perform leak detections and repairs
    that provide high-quality and good-paying jobs that employ thousands of
    Americans across our great country.
      We should be holding polluters accountable, lowering energy costs for
    hardworking Americans, and supporting new domestic industries, but when
    it comes down to a choice between reducing everyday Americans' energy
    bills or lining the pockets of oil and gas executives, Republicans will
    choose Big Oil each and every time.
      Let's stop wasting methane without consequence, and let's not leave
    American consumers to foot the bill.
      Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose this resolution.

                             Parliamentary Inquiry

      Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask about this
    parliamentary inquiry. I yield myself such time if I can that there was
    a ruling on.
      The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman have a parliamentary
    inquiry?
      Mr. PALLONE. Well, the problem that I have, Mr. Speaker, unless I
    misunderstood--yes, it would be a parliamentary inquiry. Unless I
    misunderstood, Mr. Griffith was criticizing Mr. Tonko because he
    mentioned Elon Musk in the context of this debate.

    [[Page H848]]

      I was in the back room before this debate started and the President
    had his first Cabinet meeting and Elon Musk was in charge of the
    Cabinet meeting, talking about every topic in the Federal Government.
      As you know, he has used his position with DOGE to fire people at the
    EPA.
      The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a parliamentary
    inquiry.
      Mr. PALLONE. My question is, could you repeat that ruling and what it
    was about? Was it about Elon Musk?
      The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair had advised Members that under
    clause 1 of rule XVII, remarks in debate must be confined to the
    subject under debate, in this case, the pending legislation.
      Mr. PALLONE. All right. I don't have an--
      The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may be recognized for debate.
      Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
      Again, I am a little confused. If the gentleman--if Mr. Griffith's
    comment was about the fact that we cannot bring up Elon Musk, who is
    essentially in charge of so many government programs, including
    everything at the EPA--again, I was in the back room. He was addressing
    the Cabinet. No one was saying anything. He was talking about every
    government policy. He has fired people at the EPA. He has commented on
    every government policy, including EPA policy.
      Again, I don't understand what the ruling was. I don't want to get
    into it again, but we certainly will continue to talk about Elon Musk
    and the negative impact of DOGE on the EPA, on methane, on everything
    else. That is what we are going to do.
      Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
      Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear: I meant no offense and no
    criticism. As the gentleman from the other side of the aisle and from
    New Jersey knows, I love parliamentary procedure. One of the reasons
    that we have parliamentary procedures and rules of parliamentary
    procedures is to make the place more efficient.
      We are talking about H.J. Res. 35 today. We are not talking about
    every other ill that anybody might think is going on. The focus today
    in this debate period is H.J. Res. 35.
      That is my only point. I meant no criticism of Mr. Tonko or the
    Democrats in this matter. Just trying to get us on track with
    parliamentary procedure.
      Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
    Allen), my good friend.
      Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Griffith for yielding.
      Mr. Speaker, it is a new day in America. I remind my friends that,
    just 6 years ago, we had the greatest economy in our lifetimes, and we
    achieved energy independence. That is what this day is about.
      The days of weakness on the world stage and dependence on foreign
    adversaries for our energy needs are over.
      I am proud to rise in support of H.J. Res. 35 to repeal the Biden
    administration's harmful rule establishing a natural gas tax and help
    the United States reclaim energy dominance.
      The Biden administration had an all-out war on fossil fuel. On their
    way out the door, the previous administration finalized this burdensome
    rule to effectively collect taxes on methane emissions released from
    oil and gas facilities and funnel that money to their radical climate
    allies.
      What my Democratic colleagues won't tell you is that our clean
    natural gas is a major reason why the U.S. has become a world leader in
    reducing carbon emissions.
      In partnership with President Trump, House Republicans are
    reinstating common sense in Washington. To lower costs for American
    families, we must unleash our energy capabilities and utilize the
    reliable natural gas right under our feet, not impose these outlandish
    taxes on domestic producers.
      Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge support of H.J. Res. 35.
      Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
    California (Mr. Peters), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
      Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
      Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly oppose efforts to repeal the
    waste emissions charge, commonly known as the methane fee, which is a
    commonsense measure that benefits American industry, protects
    consumers, and provides much-needed regulatory certainty in the energy
    sector.
      Addressing methane emissions, especially fugitive emissions from oil
    and gas, is one of the most effective ways to combat the climate
    crisis, protect public health, and ensure America's energy sector
    remains globally competitive.
      Methane has a global warming potential 80 times higher than carbon
    dioxide over a 20-year period, meaning that even small leaks can erase
    the climate benefits of utilizing cleaner energy sources.
    Unfortunately, methane regulations have been caught in a cycle of
    constant change.
      The first Trump administration repealed methane regulations from the
    previous administration. When President Biden took office, we led
    efforts to reinstate these crucial protections. Then, in 2022, House
    Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which not only reinstated
    strong methane controls but also implemented a market-driven approach
    to reducing waste, the methane fee.
      The methane fee is not a blanket tax on energy production. I think
    the gentleman from Virginia suggested that this was a tax on small
    polluters. Actually, it is a tax only on larger emitters because it is
    only applied for 25,000 metric tons annually, so it is on the larger
    ones.
      It is designed to encourage companies to capture more methane rather
    than venting or leaking it. The methane fee provides proof to consumers
    and competitors that we are serious about producing the cleanest, most
    efficient natural gas on the market.
      Repealing the fee would hurt American industry by eliminating
    incentives to modernize operations and remain competitive in an
    international market that increasingly values low-emission energy.
      Now, I am supposed to get up here and bash Big Oil, but actually, Big
    Oil is for the methane fee. The largest companies--ExxonMobil,
    TotalEnergies, and Cheniere Energy--support strong methane rules. They
    oppose this repeal because they know reducing waste makes business
    sense. How is that? Because the customers for our gas around the
    world--Korea, South Korea, Japan, the EU--are demanding cleaner gas.
      These companies know that the methane fee demonstrates that our gas
    is cleaner. Also, the consumer demand from those customers has led to
    the development of technologies to detect methane, its presence, and
    its concentration in a way that we can make much more efficient ways to
    regulate it.

                                  {time}  1245

      A repeal would undercut responsible producers who have invested in
    cutting-edge methane detection and capture technologies that make them
    globally competitive.
      Even if this CRA passes today, the problem doesn't simply disappear.
    My colleagues on the other side never miss a chance to point out that
    the natural gas revolution has contributed to our historic energy
    independence and cut our CO2 emissions from energy
    production. That is true, but even small leaks of methane wipe out that
    advantage from a climate perspective.
      World markets and domestic politics are demanding that the industry
    can prove with real credibility and transparency that we fixed this
    methane problem. It is increasingly apparent that the viability of
    exporting U.S. liquefied natural gas depends on American policies to
    address methane pollution.
      If we don't do this, we are going to have to pass bipartisan
    legislation to do the same thing to ensure that the industry standards
    provide for the cleanest, most efficient natural gas production.
      Industry and ratepayers have asked us for certainty, consistency, and
    an assurance that America will remain a global leader in energy
    production and resilience. The customers want this to happen. The large
    producers want this to happen. I don't see why Democrats and
    Republicans can't agree on this.
      We need long-term solutions, not more political whiplash. I urge my
    colleagues to stand with responsible energy producers and American
    consumers to reject efforts that repeal this vital provision.

    [[Page H849]]

      Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce).
      Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly
    support H.J. Res. 35, legislation to repeal the Biden administration's
    waste emissions charge.
      During President Biden's term in office, he and his administration
    waged war on our domestic energy producers, limiting their production
    and expanding regulations that raise prices on the American consumer.
      The waste emissions charge implemented by President Biden through the
    failed Inflation Reduction Act does nothing but shackle our energy
    producers, raising costs for consumers, and forcing our allies into the
    hands of adversaries.
      By repealing the Biden administration rule, we can deliver on the
    mandate that Americans voted for in November and unleash American
    energy production. This will allow us to support hardworking
    constituents and our allies abroad, by producing more affordable and
    cleaner energy.
      By simply repealing this overreaching regulation, our Nation can step
    forward, fully utilizing the energy resources that are underneath the
    feet of my constituents.
      Soon, with the help of H.J. Res. 35, we will once again be energy
    dominant. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important
    legislation.
      Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
    Virginia (Ms. McClellan), a member of our committee.
      Ms. McCLELLAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for
    the time.
      Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 35, which
    will block the methane polluter fee, which is designed to control
    wasteful methane from the oil and gas industry.
      This resolution is another attempt by Republicans to put corporate
    polluters ahead of hardworking American people. Much like their budget
    adopted last night, it is a handout for billionaires and large
    corporations.
      Despite President Trump's promise to cut energy costs, Republicans
    are actively working to raise Americans' energy bills, not to mention
    the effect that reckless tariffs that, together with this policy, the
    Republicans are pushing will drive American energy bills and prices at
    the pump sky high.
      However, I guess those high prices are worth the costs to Republicans
    if it means Big Oil and Gas are pleased.
      The Methane Emissions Reduction Program was created to make sure that
    these big corporations pay for their own pollution, but I guess my
    colleagues on the other side of the aisle would prefer that American
    families cover the cost of corporate pollution.
      Under this resolution, the American people will be stuck footing the
    bill. That is egregious. It is egregious to let the American people
    bear the burden of industry's pollution. It is not just a cost to their
    wallets, but also a cost to their health and safety.
      The oil and gas sector is the single largest industrial source of
    methane pollution in the United States, responsible for nearly a third
    of our emissions. We know that this pollution of our air has powerful
    effects on our climate and is driving worsening natural disasters.
      The devastating wildfires and hurricanes that we have seen, fueled by
    climate change, aren't just our children's problem. They are here
    today. The pollution that this methane gas produces affects our
    children's health today. It affects their respiratory health, among
    other things.
      While Republicans are pushing tax breaks for billionaires and
    corporate polluters, they will get a pat on the back from the industry
    today. Democrats are thinking about the future and the world that our
    children and their children will inherit.
      Will it be livable? Will they be able to breathe?
      I urge my colleagues to put the American people and families now and
    in the future over polluters and vote ``no'' on H.J. Res. 35.
      Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
    Alaska (Mr. Begich).
      Mr. BEGICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res.
    35, which repeals the Biden administration's natural gas tax, a
    misguided policy that drives up costs, stifles investment, and weakens
    our energy security. This so-called waste emissions charge won't reduce
    methane emissions, but it will punish American producers, increase
    reliance on foreign energy, and make life more expensive for America's
    working families.

      While some claim this tax does not directly impact my home State of
    Alaska, what is bad for American energy is bad for Alaskan energy.
    Alaska holds over 100 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and the
    Alaska LNG project is our best chance to bring it to market. Yet,
    burdensome Federal regulations discourage investment, keeping Alaska's
    energy potential locked away.
      Meanwhile, Cook Inlet gas supplies are declining, threatening
    Alaskans in south central Alaska with higher heating and electricity
    costs. If we want long-term energy security, we must develop our
    resources.
      Mr. Speaker, every job is an energy job because energy powers
    everything that we do. Supporting American energy production means
    creating good-paying jobs in oil and gas, construction, transportation,
    manufacturing, and small businesses that rely on affordable energy. The
    Alaska LNG project alone would generate thousands of jobs,
    strengthening our economy and supply chains. If we want to grow
    opportunity for working families, we must stand with American energy
    and repeal the natural gas tax.
      Let's be clear: Opponents of this bill are spreading falsehoods. They
    claim this tax will cut emissions, but the U.S. already leads the world
    in methane reduction, cutting emissions intensity by 42 percent since
    2015. They say this is about Big Oil, but 90 percent of U.S. natural
    gas comes from small and midsize producers. They claim only gas
    producers are affected, but the Biden administration designed this rule
    to also hit oil producers.
      The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
      Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
    gentleman from Alaska.
      Mr. BEGICH. Mr. Speaker, they argue this tax protects energy
    security, yet it increases reliance on foreign adversaries.
      If we are serious about energy security, affordability, and economic
    growth, we must repeal the natural gas tax. H.J. Res. 35 is a
    commonsense step toward a stronger energy future. I urge my colleagues
    to vote ``yes.''
      Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains
    on each side.
      The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 12\1/2\
    minutes remaining.
      The gentleman from Virginia has 19\1/2\ minutes remaining.
      Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
      As I mentioned, I am very much opposed to this resolution, and a big
    part of it is because I think it will cost the American taxpayers and
    the Federal Government more money.
      The CBO has a preliminary cost estimate for this resolution, and it
    is a whopper. The CBO estimates that this resolution would cost
    American taxpayers $7.2 billion over the next 10 years.
      Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an email from CBO regarding
    this.
           H.J. Res. 35 would disapprove a final rule published by the
         Environmental Protection Agency in November 2024 that
         implemented a requirement in the 2022 reconciliation act
         (Public Law 117-169). The rule detailed how the agency would
         collect fees from certain energy-related facilities whose
         methane emissions exceed a threshold specified by law.
           Estimated revenue effects of H.J. Res. 35, a joint
         resolution providing for Congressional disapproval under
         chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule
         submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to
         ``Waste Emissions Charge for Petroleum and Natural Gas
         Systems: Procedures for Facilitating Compliance, Including
         Netting and Exemptions''.
           As posted by the House Committee on Rules on February 24,
         2025.

    [[Page H850]]

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             By fiscal year, millions of dollars--
                                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                            2025-     2025-
                                     2025     2026      2027      2028      2029      2030     2031     2032     2033     2034     2035     2030      2035
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      DECREASES IN REVENUES

    Estimated Revenues...........     -400    -1,300    -1,400    -1,300    -1,300     -375     -300     -275     -275     -275     -275    -6,075    -7,475
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

           By invoking a legislative process established in the
         Congressional Review Act, the resolution would repeal the
         rule and prohibit the agency from issuing the same or any
         similar rule in the future.
           The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
         mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
                                                    Phillip L. Swagel,
                                Director, Congressional Budget Office.
      Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, again, $7.2 billion to have dirtier air, a
    more unstable climate, and waste more gas. I mean, it is really
    unbelievable.
      Republicans have spent years getting mad about the deficit, but as we
    saw yesterday, the first chance they got, they plan to increase the
    deficit by trillions of dollars in their budget resolution to give tax
    breaks to billionaires.
      This bill is more of the same. They are encouraging oil and gas
    companies to let their products go to waste to the tune of $7.2 billion
    rather than put them to work for American families just to line the
    pockets of their oil and gas allies.
      I listened to the gentleman from Alaska, and we are all in favor of
    developing our natural resources. There was more oil and gas pumped
    under President Biden than any other President since I have been here.
    We want to develop our resources but in a way that helps Americans save
    dollars.
      I heard Dr. Joyce on our committee talk about our allies. I mean, I
    have got to be honest with you. When I listen to Trump, he makes it
    sound like our allies are our adversaries, and our adversaries like
    Russia are our allies. He talks about investing in Russian resources
    and oil and gas.
      Again, I don't know what this administration is doing. I know that
    what the Republicans are doing today is definitely not a good thing for
    the American people. It is not good for our deficit. It is going to
    essentially cost Americans more, and it is only going to result in more
    pollution. When, in fact, this is working and this methane fee is
    actually getting the oil and gas industry to correct this problem and
    recycle the methane and not waste it.
      We are just trying to do what makes sense from every point of view
    here. The Methane Emissions Reduction Program is a win-win for
    everybody, and this resolution is a lose-lose for everybody, in my
    opinion.
      Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
      Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
    California (Mr. LaMalfa).
      Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague yielding me the
    time here and the effort on this review.
      We see that this is an eleventh hour rule put in at the end of the
    Biden administration, like many, that was contained in the Inflation
    Reduction Act, the so-called Inflation Reduction Act. That is a pretty
    funny name.
      What we have is a situation here where there are a couple of main
    drivers of inflation in this country: government overspending and
    energy costs that have been driven so high during the Biden
    administration. It hasn't helped.
      What we are doing, in effect, is that we are punishing the people
    with the reduction of methane by imposing these strict financial
    charges on the facilities. Due to that rewrite of the greenhouse gas
    reporting rule, the natural gas tax will capture many more producers
    than the so-called Inflation Reduction Act actually authorized. It is
    already being misapplied.
      When you look at the whole issue, H.J. Res. 35 is important to get
    back to energy independence and also not drive our partners in Europe
    into the arms of--not yet another Russian hoax, it sounds like here
    today--Russian natural gas dependence.
      If anybody would view the history of those areas of the world, why
    would they want to be dependent on Russian gas? Why would we do things
    to help foster that by driving up the price and lowering the
    availability?
      Indeed, with the miracle of hydraulic fracturing, we made natural gas
    so incredibly available for our country to lower the cost of energy. We
    enjoyed that for a while until the Biden policies have put us where we
    are.
      We have to take a step back, repeal that horrific rule made by rule,
    not by a discussion in Congress, but by the stroke of a pen in the
    Biden era. Let's repeal this. Let's put us back on energy independence
    that will make our economy stronger, our country stronger, and also
    help us be better trading partners with those around the world that can
    rely on cheap American gas instead of Russian gas.
      Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
    Oregon (Ms. Dexter).

                                  {time}  1300

      Ms. DEXTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this
    resolution to roll back a critical component of the Methane Emissions
    Reduction Program.
      The Oregonians I represent know that climate change poses a real and
    existential threat. As a mother, I understand intimately the anxiety
    our children are grappling with every day with the warming Earth that
    they are inheriting. It is my commitment to mitigating climate change,
    while working to adapt to it, that drives my work here.
      We cannot kick this can down the road and wait to take action. As our
    kids are forced to grapple with this reality, I am sick and tired of
    Republican efforts to let Big Oil and corporate polluters off the hook.
      The methane polluter fee that would be rolled back by this resolution
    corrects a serious market failure that makes it cheaper for polluters
    to waste methane than install or upgrade equipment to prevent leaks and
    flaring. I will vote ``no'' because I have no interest in protecting
    corporate polluters at the expense of a cleaner world for our children.
      To the Oregonians watching, please know that I will come back to this
    House floor time and again to ensure our message is heard loud and
    clear. The climate crisis is real. It is our children who will suffer
    if we do not stand up to Big Oil and corporate polluters. I implore my
    colleagues to stand with me.
      Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
    Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), my friend.
      Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 35
    which will overturn the disastrous Biden administration's natural gas
    tax on the hardworking American people.
      During a time in which energy demand across the United States and the
    entire world is growing exponentially, the Federal Government should
    make it easier to produce ever cleaner, reliable, and affordable
    energy. Rather than supporting domestic energy production, the Biden
    administration and my friends on the other side of the aisle used the
    so-called Inflation Reduction Act to levy an unnecessary tax on natural
    gas, which ultimately fell on American people to pay, simply to try and
    kill the domestic natural gas industry.
      Mr. Speaker, do you know what is the largest factor that has led to
    global emissions being reduced in recent years? It has been the
    increased use of American natural gas, both here in the United States
    and around the world. Oil and natural gas produced in the Gulf of
    America is 43 percent cleaner than oil and natural gas produced
    elsewhere around the world.
      The natural gas tax won't stop the use of all natural gas. It will
    simply stop the use of American natural gas. This tax will make it
    harder for hardworking Americans to pay for their soaring energy bills
    and force us to utilize more natural gas and energy produced by foreign
    adversarial nations

    [[Page H851]]

    who have far inferior environmental and labor standards.
      A natural gas tax is a completely misguided tax on the working
    American people that will hurt their bottom line and benefit Vladimir
    Putin. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.
      Mr. Speaker, the Biden administration has been the most antidomestic
    energy-producing administration and the most antimining administration
    in the history of this country. We are going to turn it around.
      Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
      Mr. Speaker, I spoke before about how the Methane Emissions Reduction
    Program is a win-win and how this resolution is a lose-lose. The bottom
    line is that curbing methane waste is an opportunity for the oil and
    gas industry itself. The industry really wants to waste less methane.
      It is simple logic. Each molecule of methane saved is one they can
    sell to people. Oil and gas operators emit the equivalent of about $2
    billion worth of wasted natural gas every year, and there is money to
    be made in that. On the other hand, repealing this program, which is
    what this resolution does, will cost us $7.2 billion and at the same
    time pollutes our air. It is a lose-lose scenario.
      Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the
    balance of my time.
      Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
    gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), the chairman of the full
    Committee on Energy and Commerce.
      Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time.
      Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 35 to repeal the Biden-
    Harris administration's natural gas tax. For the last 4 years,
    Americans witnessed firsthand the implementation of a heavyhanded, top-
    down regulatory agenda that put the interests of the environmental left
    first, leading to increased prices for families and businesses.
      This resolution would overturn the rule implementing the EPA's waste
    emissions charge which was published following the 2024 Presidential
    election as part of the Methane Emissions Reduction Program established
    in the Inflation Reduction Act. Energy produced in the United States
    has some of the lowest methane emissions intensity in the world. U.S.
    upstream oil and gas producers have reduced their total methane
    emissions intensity by 42 percent since 2015.
      We have our entrepreneurial spirit to thank for this success, not
    policies like the WEC, which are unworkable for American producers and
    will lead to our allies being forced to rely on gas with higher
    emissions coming from adversarial nations like Venezuela.
      Businesses and consumers rely on the affordable and reliable natural
    gas underneath our feet. By putting new taxes on this baseload power,
    the Biden-Harris administration put the interests of their far-left
    base ahead of the needs of the American people.
      Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that
    will enable us to enact President Trump's energy agenda and restore
    American energy dominance.
      Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
      Mr. Speaker, I really stress that the Republicans keep talking about
    how this Methane Emissions Reduction Program harms the industry.
    Nothing could be further from the truth.
      There are a whole bunch of incentives in this program to drive down
    excess methane pollution and remediate the effects of pollution that do
    occur, but the program provides over $1.5 billion to assist the
    industry with reducing current and legacy methane emissions, including
    $700 million of incentives for small producers.
      The methane charge, or fee, only applies to wasted methane above
    specific thresholds based on the oil and gas industry's own climate
    commitments and methane reduction targets. We worked with the industry
    to put this together. They are cooperating with us. It is the opposite
    of the idea that somehow they are harmed. They are benefiting. They are
    actually making money from it.
      Overall, the Methane Emissions Reduction Program recognizes the
    cleanest performers, holds companies responsible for their own leaks
    and wasted methane, drives innovation, and creates a lot of jobs. The
    whole idea is to get them to do the right thing. We even give them
    money in order to accomplish that with their equipment, and it is
    working. This idea that it is harmful is just nonsense.
      Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
      Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger).
      Mr. PFLUGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my legislation,
    H.J. Res. 35, to nullify the EPA's rule on the waste emissions charge,
    also known as the natural gas tax.
      With President Trump back in office, it is time to restore American
    energy. It is time to restore American energy dominance, which is why I
    am proud to lead this CRA to rescind the ill-conceived natural gas tax.
      As part of his war on energy, former President Biden took radical
    steps to end fossil fuels during his administration, which hurt the
    hardworking energy producers not only in my district in the Permian
    Basin in Midland and Odessa but also across America.
      This Congressional Review Act is a tool that Congress uses to
    overturn Federal agency actions, a direct example of congressional
    checks and balances on the executive branch and one of Congress' most
    important duties.
      My CRA will not eliminate the program that collects this tax, but it
    will remove the EPA's ability to collect it. This is an essential first
    step in eliminating this tax, while we work to undo the underlying
    statute: killing the natural gas tax once and for all. It is critical
    to negate these punitive regulatory requirements now to ensure that the
    United States can reclaim its place as the world leader in energy for
    generations to come.
      In the waning days of the Biden administration, the EPA doubled down
    on Biden's disastrous energy policies, imposing a burdensome and
    harmful tax on oil and natural gas facilities called the waste
    emissions charge, also like we have been discussing, the natural gas
    tax or the methane tax. This natural gas tax was a blatant abuse of
    power and the first time that the Federal Government has ever directly
    levied a tax on emissions, creating a duplicative layer of red tape
    that would devastate American energy, if continued.
      The specifics of this tax started at $900 a metric ton in '24,
    increasing to $1,200, and then $1,500 in the subsequent years. While
    the statute directs the EPA to develop a formula to impose and collect
    a tax based on intensity, Biden's EPA did so by ignoring well-
    established international standards.
      Actually, one of the things I have heard here today is that industry
    was consulted. That is false. Industry was not consulted. In a hearing,
    I asked a member of Biden's Department of Energy to tell me one
    producer they had worked with. I asked them to name one producer they
    had worked with, and they couldn't come up with that producer. They
    couldn't come up with even one until pressed. Then they said whatever
    producer they thought. I went back and double-checked that. They hadn't
    been consulted. They hadn't been talked to.
      This is an important day. Taxes, like the one we are discussing,
    raise energy production costs. They discourage investment. They
    ultimately lead to higher consumer prices and costs. Not only is this a
    tremendous burden on both producers and consumers but this rule also
    completely ignores the significant progress that the United States
    private sector has made over the past decade or more.
      U.S. emissions have decreased by 18 percent between 2005 and 2022,
    making the United States the world leader in reductions of emissions,
    while simultaneously increasing production threefold or fourfold.
      Today's vote exemplifies the principles upheld in the Supreme Court's
    landmark Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo decision. By overturning
    Chevron deference precedent, the court restored the judiciary's
    rightful role in interpreting statutes and checking agency overreach.
      This is important for all of us. What Biden's administration did for
    4 straight years was to overreach, to impose burdensome regulations,
    and to hurt innovation, the actual innovation that was reducing
    emissions. They destroyed that progress.

    [[Page H852]]

      I am very proud to lead this CRA. I am proud that it will be
    bipartisan. I have had multiple Democrats who have told me that they
    are going to vote for this because it is common sense and it actually
    helps all of our goals: affordable, reliable energy that also helps the
    environment.
      Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I thank
    the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce for leading this.
      Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is
    remaining.
      The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Begich). The gentleman from Virginia has
    10 minutes remaining.
      The gentleman from New Jersey has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.

      Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
    consume.
      Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the gentleman from Texas,
    and he described once for me his district, Midland, and the oil and gas
    production there.
      I must stress, I actually did spend a lot of time talking to the
    industry when we were putting this methane emissions program together.
    I can speak firsthand that I spoke to the industry. The main thing they
    were concerned about is they did not want this program to be punitive.
    They said: We want to correct this problem. We don't want to waste
    methane, but you have to give us some sort of incentive to do this.
      That is what we did. Rather than have a punitive program, we have
    $1.5 billion to assist industry with reducing current and legacy
    methane emissions. Mr. Speaker, $700 million of that is specifically
    set aside for small producers, which I know there are a lot of those in
    the district of the gentleman from Texas.
      Unfortunately, much of that $700 million to help the small producers
    has been stalled by President Trump with his funding freeze. That harms
    the small producers who are counting on those critical funds.
      Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                                  {time}  1315

      Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
    North Dakota (Mrs. Fedorchak).
      Mrs. FEDORCHAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J.
    Res. 35, legislation I proudly cosponsored to stand up for North
    Dakota's energy producers and hardworking families who depend on
    affordable, reliable energy.
      For my first action as a Member of Congress, I wrote to President
    Trump and Secretary Burgum urging them to repeal 20 unnecessary and
    burdensome rules that threaten affordable, reliable energy, including
    this rule.
      The Biden administration's methane tax is a real attack on North
    Dakota's energy sector, and it is really a tax on every aspect of our
    lives. This tax was the number one concern of the energy stakeholders
    in my State.
      This heavy-handed Federal mandate punishes small and midsize
    independent producers who are responsible for 90 percent of America's
    natural gas. It threatens jobs, raises costs for families, and
    jeopardizes our energy independence.
      North Dakota leads the way in responsible energy production, not
    because of government mandates but because of innovation and
    technology. My State is proof that we don't have to choose between a
    strong economy and a clean environment. We can and do have both.
      This tax will have a huge impact on our energy sectors who already
    produce the cleanest energy in the world. This natural gas tax
    threatens American energy security, and we will be forced to rely on
    adversaries to meet our energy needs, countries that do not have strong
    labor or environmental laws.
      This tax hurts energy producers who are already doing it right.
    America is leading the way in reducing emissions.
      Since 2015, upstream oil and gas producers have reduced their methane
    emissions by 42 percent. Our innovation and technology have allowed us
    to reduce emissions while raising the standard of living across this
    country.
      American energy solutions are clean energy solutions. We should be
    unleashing U.S. energy production, not taxing it and not making it more
    expensive and creating disincentives to production.
      Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for
    closing.
      I just want to stress, Mr. Speaker, that the methane polluter fee
    corrects a market failure that currently makes it cheaper for owners
    and operators to waste methane instead of installing or upgrading their
    equipment to prevent leaks and flaring.
      In other words, what we want them to do is to upgrade their
    equipment, prevent the leaks and the flaring. If they do that, we give
    them money, including a set-aside for small producers so that this
    happens and they don't pay the fee.
      Leaked or intentionally wasted natural gas never makes its way to
    customers, but they are nevertheless stuck with the bill. They have to
    pay for that.
      The Methane Emissions Reduction Program will ensure that American
    consumers no longer pay for wasted energy or the harm that these
    emissions can cause.
      The bottom line is that wasted methane is bad for business. It is bad
    for consumers. It is bad for the climate. The problem with H.J. Res. 35
    is it will allow this waste to continue unchecked.
      This is a program that is working. Don't kill it with this
    resolution. You are going to kill jobs. You are going to kill our
    efforts to try to reduce methane in the environment, and you are not
    helping anybody in the industry.
      For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' on H.J. Res. 35,
    and I yield back the balance of my time.
      Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter of
    support for H.J. Res. 35 from the United States Chamber of Commerce, a
    letter from the National Federation of Independent Businesses, and
    last, but not least, a letter from the American Petroleum Institute.
                                                    February 24, 2025.
           To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The
         U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports the Congressional Review
         Act resolution of disapproval aimed at overturning the
         Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Waste Emissions
         Charge for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems: Procedures for
         Facilitating Compliance, Including Netting and Exemptions
         rulemaking. Disapproving this rulemaking would help give
         consumers access to affordable energy to heat their homes and
         businesses to power manufacturing.
           Disapproving EPA's natural gas tax rulemaking is expected
         to reduce energy costs for consumers, making heating,
         cooking, and electricity more affordable for households. For
         manufacturers, it lowers operating expenses, enabling greater
         investment in production and job creation, which in turn
         stimulates economic growth and strengthens the overall
         economy. Disapproving this tax will also provide relief to
         small businesses and industries so they can allocate more
         resources toward growth, innovation, and workforce expansion.
           This natural gas tax threatens to increase costs to
         consumers and businesses and undermines economic
         competitiveness. We urge Congress to act swiftly in passing
         this resolution of disapproval.
               Sincerely,

                                                  Neil L. Bradley,

          Executive Vice President, Chief Policy Officer, and Head of
                                                   Strategic Advocacy,
         U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
                                      ____

                                                             NFIB,

                                    Washington, DC, February 25, 2025.
           Dear Representative: On behalf of NFIB, the nation's
         leading small business advocacy organization, I write in
         support of H.J. Res. 35, the Congressional Review Act (CRA)
         resolution to repeal the Environmental Protection Agency's
         (EPA) rule establishing a methane fee for oil and natural gas
         production, processing, transmission, and storage. This fee
         will increase costs for energy producers, which will be
         passed on to families and small businesses. A vote in favor
         of H.J. Res. 35, will be considered an NFIB Key Vote for the
         119th Congress.
           In a recent ballot, more than 88 percent of small business
         owners support streamlining regulations to facilitate the
         production and transport of oil, natural gas, and other
         energy sources in the United States. Small business owners
         also report the cost of electricity, natural gas, gasoline,
         and diesel fuel, as top 10 problems when asked to assess
         their top 75 issues.
           The EPA's methane fee would apply to oil and gas facilities
         that report annual methane emissions above a certain
         threshold. In 2024, a $900 fee per metric ton of methane
         would kick in above the threshold. By 2026, the fee will
         increase to $1,500 per metric ton. This fee will increase the
         cost of energy production which will be passed on to the
         consumer in the form of higher energy costs. In its rule, the
         EPA acknowledged that this regulation would increase the
         price of gasoline and decrease gas production.

    [[Page H853]]

           Small businesses want affordable, abundant, and reliable
         energy. NFIB strongly supports H.J. Res. 35 and will consider
         support for H.J. Res. 35 a Key Vote for the 119th Congress.
               Sincerely,

                                                      Adam Temple,

                                   Senior Vice President for Advocacy,
         NFIB.
                                      ____

                                     American Petroleum Institute,

                                    Washington, DC, February 26, 2025.
         Hon. Brett Guthrie,
         Chair, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington,
             DC.
         Hon. Frank Pallone,
         Ranking Member, House Committee on Energy and Commerce,
             Washington, DC.
           Dear Chairman Guthrie and Ranking Member Pallone: The
         American Petroleum Institute (API) writes in support of H.J.
         Res. 35, Providing for congressional disapproval under
         chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule
         submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
         relating to ``Waste Emissions Charge for Petroleum and
         Natural Gas Systems: Procedures for Facilitating Compliance,
         Including Netting and Exemptions'' (the WEC rule).
           The WEC rule is a duplicative layer of red tape that
         creates a punitive tax on American energy, stifling
         innovation and hampering the industry's ability to produce
         the energy that American consumers and allies abroad rely on,
         and we appreciate your committee's leadership in repealing
         this harmful policy.
           Methane emissions from the oil and gas sector are already
         regulated by EPA under the new and existing source rule,
         which prescribes extensive requirements for industry. At the
         same time, industry is voluntarily doing more to continue
         reducing our emissions, and those efforts are working. Thanks
         to innovation and industry actions, methane emissions fell by
         42 percent between 2015 and 2023 according to the EPA, even
         as production increased by 51 percent to meet demand.
           Operators have taken significant voluntary steps to
         identify and implement cleaner engineering technology
         solutions within their operations and facility designs. For
         example, since 2018, members of The Environmental
         Partnership, a voluntary industry initiative administered by
         API and whose members represent nearly 70 percent of U.S.
         onshore oil and gas production, have removed or replaced more
         than 180,000 gas-driven pneumatics, resulting in the
         permanent reduction of an estimated 355,421 metric tonnes of
         CH4 per year released into the atmosphere based on 2023 EPA
         reporting. Operators are also implementing vapor recovery
         units to capture methane emissions from higher-emitting
         equipment like tanks and compressors. In addition to
         traditional ground-based monitoring approaches using optical
         gas imaging (OGI) technologies, companies are also
         implementing the use of laser absorption spectroscopy and
         sensors technologies on the surface, in the sky and in space
         to improve leak detection efforts and further reduce
         emissions.
           In addition to the duplicative nature of the fee, API also
         contends that the Biden Administration failed to implement it
         consistent with congressional intent for several key reasons:
           The Inflation Reduction Act allowed for an exemption from
         the fee if (1) the final EPA rule addressing methane
         emissions is in effect; and (2) as determined by the
         Administrator, the given state rule will result in greater
         emission reductions than would have been achieved by the
         proposed rule entitled ``Standards of Performance for New,
         Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and Emissions Guidelines
         for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate
         Review'' (86 Fed. Reg. 63110 (November 15, 2021)) had that
         rule been finalized and implemented. Those conditions have
         been met, but the compliance exemption is still not as
         broadly available as Congress intended. The availability of
         the exemption should not have been delayed until all 50
         states have fully implemented the requirements.
           The WEC rule also disqualifies sites from using the
         compliance exemption if they have a deviation. Sites should
         not be disqualified from using the compliance exemption
         unless and until a violation (not a deviation) is proven
         through adjudication or admitted by the owner/operator of the
         site, and disqualification should be limited specifically to
         the emissions resulting from the adjudicated violation.
           The final rule allows netting at the parent company level,
         but owners/operators who have made substantial investments to
         mitigate emissions in advance of any regulatory requirement
         are not currently able to include those facilities that now
         fall below the Subpart W reporting threshold in netting
         calculations.
           The WEC rule requires combustion emissions to be reported
         under Subpart W and subject to fees, instead of under Subpart
         C, consistent with other industries and congressional intent
         around the netting provisions.
           Repealing this misguided rule is an important first step
         towards providing industry with relief from one of the
         previous Administration's anti-energy policies, and we
         appreciate your work to advance a pro-consumer regulatory
         environment that embraces U.S. energy.
           We urge Congress to pass H.J. Res. 35 to repeal the WEC
         rule, and API and its members stand ready to work together
         with your committee to follow this with full repeal of the
         underlying statutory mandate in Section 136(c)-(g) of the
         Clean Air Act.
               Sincerely,
                                                   Amanda E. Eversole.

      Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
      It is interesting. I heard some speakers--and everybody is just
    trying to talk about these issues from their viewpoint. I get it.
    However, I heard some speakers on the other side of the aisle say today
    that we are just catering to Big Oil and others.
      Then I hear there were discussions with larger folks, and those are
    the people who are okay with it. I hear from Representatives from
    places like Alaska, North Dakota, and Texas whose constituents
    oftentimes are small mom-and-pop operations. It is hard to think of oil
    and natural gas that way, but that is the way it is in those regions.
    They say this will, in fact, hurt them and this is disastrous.
      I suspect, Mr. Speaker, the reason that we have this dichotomy, this
    difference, is that a lot of times bigger institutions, bigger
    organizations, can afford to take on a new regulation. It will cost
    them a little bit of money. It will make the cost of production go up a
    little bit, but because they are large, they can spread that out over a
    lot of different items or a lot of different--I guess, in this case, it
    would be oil and gas measured in cubic feet, or whatever the
    measurement is these days. As a result, they can say this is a cost
    spread out over a large piece of the pie so it is not that big of a
    deal to us.
      As I said in my opening, there are 9,000 small and midsize
    independent petroleum drillers in the United States. These, mostly
    small, operations are responsible for developing 91 percent of oil and
    gas wells, producing 83 percent of America's oil, and 90 percent of our
    country's natural gas.
      Those are the folks who are most upset about these regulations and
    why we need to repeal them. We are going to break the back of those
    9,000 small and midsize independent petroleum drillers who are
    providing us with affordable gas, affordable heat for our homes through
    natural gas, and affordable products made out of natural gas and
    petroleum.
      Mr. Speaker, it is the right thing to do, and I encourage all
    Members, both Democrat, Republican, and any who may think of themselves
    as independent, to vote ``yes'' on H.J. Res. 35.
      Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
      The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
      Pursuant to House Resolution 161, the previous question is ordered on
    the joint resolution.
      The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
    resolution.
      The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and 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 yeas and nays were ordered.
      The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
    proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                              ____________________