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''

Floor Speech

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.

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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. My question is, could you repeat that ruling and what it was about? Was it about Elon Musk?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. All right. I don't have an--

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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. McClellan), a member of our committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on each side.

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. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Dexter).

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. 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 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.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source