Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to "Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources Review".

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of S.J. Res. 14, which we will vote on later today. I want to thank Senator Heinrich, Senator Markey, and Senator King for their leadership on this resolution. And I might be mistaken here, but I understand that when the Presiding Officer was Governor of Colorado, the Presiding Officer might have set the precedent for the creation of this point of view that is expressed in the resolution before us. So the Navy salutes Colorado.

The American people rely on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that our Nation has clean air, clean water, a clean environment, and a safe climate. Unfortunately, in 2020, under the previous administration, the EPA strayed from its mission any number of times.

One of those missteps was that Agency's methane rescission rule, which deregulated methane emissions from the oil and gas industry--our Nation's largest industrial source of this dangerous greenhouse gas. By passing this resolution, Congress, today, will reject and nullify this dangerous rule and restore clean air and climate protections from our Nation's largest sources of methane pollution.

Let me explain what methane is and why it is so harmful to our climate and to our health.

Methane is a super pollutant that damages our lungs and our planet. Compared to carbon dioxide, methane is a small part of our overall greenhouse gas emissions. Having said that, though, scientists tell us that methane is responsible for roughly--get this--one-quarter of the manmade global warming that we are witnessing today. Let me say that again: Methane is responsible for roughly one-quarter of the manmade global warming that we are experiencing and witnessing today.

Over a 20-year period, methane is 84 times more harmful to our climate than carbon dioxide--84 times. For a small molecule, methane punches above its weight when it comes to its contributions to climate change.

The oil and gas industry is our Nation's largest source of methane, responsible for nearly 30 percent of total methane emissions. For comparison, this amount of methane pollution has the same climate effect as the emissions from our Nation's entire fleet of passenger vehicles in a year.

In addition to damaging our climate, methane emissions also contribute to ground-level ozone, known as smog. Breathing in smog harms our lungs, and it aggravates lung diseases like bronchitis and asthma. Exposure to smog has been linked to premature death, and children and the elderly are particularly vulnerable to these health risks. If we want to meaningfully tackle the danger to our health and our climate, we need to reduce methane emissions from the entire oil and gas sector.

In 2016, as I was alluding to earlier, the EPA acted to do just that. Building on State actions, such as in Colorado, whose former chief executive is presiding at this moment, the EPA put into place commonsense Clean Air Act regulations that required the oil and gas industry to update its equipment. The rule also required the industry to inspect frequently in order to find and repair leaks and malfunctions that are such a big source of our methane problem.

Based on feedback from the oil and gas industry meeting, these new emission requirements did not place an undue burden on companies or raise costs for consumers. In fact, many oil and gas companies and industry groups supported the measures, and they still do. That is why it was so surprising when, in September of 2020, the EPA issued the final methane rescission rule to roll back what so many believed to be commonsense approaches for reducing methane risks.

While the Trump administration moved forward with this damaging policy, the consequences of climate change were roiling--roiling--our Nation. California, for example, experienced its worst wildfire season on record, with historic forest fires covering an area about the size of the State of Rhode Island. Other Western States--including Oregon, Montana, and Colorado--were ablaze with unprecedented damaging wildfires.

At the same time, other parts of our country were being battered by violent, extreme weather. The people of Iowa experienced one of the most costly thunderstorms in history, with hurricane force winds, causing $7.5 billion in economic damage. It flattened, I am told, over half of that State's corn and soybean crops in one day.

Coastal towns in Southern States like Florida, like Louisiana, and like South Carolina were battered by hurricane after hurricane after hurricane. In the summer of 2020, last summer, we saw the most hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean in recorded history.

Despite all of this, the Trump administration took a step to undo one of the key tools available to us to combat methane emissions that contribute greatly to climate change. The methane rescission rule was a stark departure from the widely accepted, science-based, and commonsense view that we should protect people and our planet from the dangers of methane.

In promulgating the methane rescission rule, the Trump administration ignored the global scientific community, including EPA's own Agency scientists, who warned that the extreme weather events of 2020 were just the tip of the iceberg of consequences we can expect if we don't keep global warming below an increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius between now and 2040.

The bottom line is that the Trump methane rescission rule would allow more methane pollution, increase public health dangers, and bring us ever closer to the brink of irreversible climate catastrophe. It is this Trump EPA action that my colleagues and I reject today through the resolution before us.

The methane rescission rule stated that methane couldn't be regulated under the Clean Air Act. We reject that. The methane rescission rule stated that EPA couldn't regulate the entire oil and gas sector from wellhead to storage. We reject that. The methane rescission rule stated that greenhouse gasses couldn't be regulated. We reject that. The methane rescission rule also reversed EPA's longstanding position on what is required to regulate a pollutant, making it harder for EPA to implement clean air and climate protections. We reject that as well.

With approval of this resolution, though, EPA can and should still move forward to strengthen methane standards for the oil and gas sector in the future. This effort is also very timely, coming on the heels of President

Biden's climate commitment for our Nation to reduce emissions by 50 percent from 2005 levels by the end of this decade--by 2030.

Passing this resolution will be good for our health. Passing this resolution will be good for our planet. And passing this resolution will be good for America's economy. That is why so many States, so many environmental groups, and even a number of significant oil and gas companies support this resolution.

Joining over 60 environmental groups, as well as 20 State attorneys general, seven major oil and gas companies support today's resolution to reinstate requirements to control methane emissions. From the Environmental Defense Fund to Shell, from the League of Conservation Voters to BP, from the Natural Resources Defense Council to Equinor, there is a broad consensus among stakeholders with different interests--different interests--that Congress should reject and nullify the methane rescission rule.

So why do a number of oil and gas companies want Congress to reject the Trump rule, restore existing regulations, and pursue further regulations? They know the best way to boost growth in their sector and across the economy is to keep methane and other climate pollution in check. With unchecked methane releases in its operations, natural gas production and use become part of the climate problem, not a part of the solution as we endeavor to drive toward lower carbon fuels.

Companies know where the global market is heading. They know regulations will support innovation and technology deployment in their industry, bringing down emission reduction costs for everyone.

I sometimes like to quote Albert Einstein, who said, among other things: ``In adversity lies opportunity.'' Think about that: ``In adversity lies opportunity.'' We can see that in the issue of methane pollution and in climate change. It presents plenty of challenges. Yes, that is true. But it also presents a remarkable opportunity. It is an opportunity for us to protect our planet, improve the air that we breathe, and strengthen our economy.

At the same time, the product that the oil and gas industry is capturing can be sold to fuel more homes and businesses across the country. I want to say that again, too. At the same time, the product that the oil and gas industry is capturing can be sold to fuel more homes and businesses across the country. That is why today I will gladly vote for this resolution, which reaffirms that the Clean Air Act requires EPA to take action to protect Americans from dangerous pollution like methane.

In passing this resolution today, Congress is rejecting the Trump rule's baseless interpretation of the Clean Air Act and, in its place, reinstating commonsense methane public health and climate protections across the entire oil and gas sector. We are also clearing a path for additional protections from methane and other hazardous climate pollutants.

As a Senate, we are making our intent clear: The Clean Air Act gives EPA the authority and the mandate to establish methane emissions standards, even stronger than the ones we reinstate with this resolution. This includes all facets of the oil and gas industry now and moving forward, from production to processing and from transmission to storage.

We are saying to EPA loud and clear: It is your mission to protect the environment, to protect human health and public welfare from the dangers of climate pollutants like methane. And there is a lot of work still to do before that mission can be achieved. It is time that we get to that work. We don't have a lot of time to waste.

I have a couple of unanimous consent requests I would like to offer. One is to place supportive materials into the Record. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the Record several of my materials in support of S.J. Res. 14 that is before us today; first, the Biden administration's Statement of Administration Policy supporting passage of the resolution; second, two letters of support for passing this joint resolution--one from the 57 leading environmental and advocacy groups and another, the Shell Oil Company.

These letters demonstrate the breadth of support for regulating this harmful pollutant and rejecting the methane rescission rule.

I ask unanimous consent for these to be inserted into the Record as appropriate

Now, Mr. President, I will yield the floor, but before I do, I want to salute you for your role in an earlier day, in an earlier place, your State of Colorado, for helping get this started. We are in your debt. Good work. God bless.

With that, I yield the floor.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Lamb), one of the chief sponsors of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side?

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.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Peters).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez).

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close if the gentleman is.

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.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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;

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).''

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.

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. 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. 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.