Mr. Chairman, the EPA has imposed these substantial competitive barriers, despite the industry's significant reduction in methane emissions through their own initiatives and innovation. What is not known is that through the EPA's own…
Mr. Chairman, the EPA has imposed these substantial competitive barriers, despite the industry's significant reduction in methane emissions through their own initiatives and innovation.
What is not known is that through the EPA's own analysis, it shows that methane emissions from hydraulically fractured gas wells have actually fallen dramatically. According to EPA data--not my data, but EPA data--methane emissions from oil and gas production declined by 38 percent from 2005 to 2012, and methane emissions from hydraulically fractured natural gas wells have plummeted 73 percent since 2011.
Total methane emissions from natural gas systems actually are down 11 percent since 2005, despite the significant production increases over this time period. This is a prime example of market forces at work.
American producers developed innovative means of capturing additional methane because doing so means they have more product to sell. Profitability, rather than a top-down Washington regulation, drove this unprecedented emissions reduction.
In fact, in 2012 alone, voluntary methane emission reductions activities by the U.S. oil and gas industry generated $364 million in additional revenue.
Unfortunately, the methane rule represents the kind of one-size-fits- all policy that will actually stifle innovation and discourage further investment in emission reduction technology.
Actually, as a result, the EPA's methane rule, if allowed to stand, will not only lead to economic harm, but environmental harm as well.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, garbage in equals garbage out. We have heard this on numerous occasions.
And in this instance, the international--or correction--the Interagency Working Group has chosen to disregard the policy decisions from OMB Circular A-4 regarding how they set the modeling. And as a result of that, they have--interestingly, the analysis generated by them would have been 80 percent lower than the mean SCC value if they had followed the guidance. And the result overstates the benefits by at least four times relative to what it would be if only the national benefits were considered as OMB directs.
This is a blatant pattern of disregard, Mr. Chairman, for the OMB guidance in order to inflate the SCC and begs the question how many input decisions were responsible where responsible people could disagree were selected in order only to inflate the SCC value.
Let's restore the faith and vote for this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits the use of funds to take retaliatory actions against individual States. Importantly, this amendment would not prevent the EPA from working with States to restore the bay.
In 1985, the States in the Chesapeake Bay region recognized the need to address pollutants in the bay and, through their own initiative, came together to conduct cleanup efforts. These State-driven efforts were largely successful. As a matter of fact, water quality improved almost 50 percent from 1985 to 2010.
However, in 2010, the EPA seized the States' authority to determine their own continued compliance and threatened to dictate Federal requirements if the States were unable to comply. This 2010 power grab, known as the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, directly contradicts the intent of the Clean Water Act.
The Clean Water Act clearly acknowledges State authority in water quality and requires cooperation rather than coercion between the States and the Federal Government.
These coercive methods have been tried and imposed and have failed. Actually, water quality has not improved since the federalization of the bay cleanup efforts.
It is simply imperative that we return the constitutional rights of the States to make their own water quality improvement decisions and restore the State control that has been shown to actually improve water quality. The future of the Chesapeake Bay depends on it.
Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
Mr. Chairman, I want to start by thanking Chairman Calvert for this opportunity.
Mr. Chair, this amendment prohibits the EPA from using funds for actions pursuant to section 115 of the Clean Air Act. Section 115 of the Clean Air Act allows the agency to mandate State emissions levels to whatever level the agency deems appropriate if, in collaboration with a foreign government, they determine endangerment and if the other government has a reciprocal agreement to prevent or control these emissions in their own nation.
Now, this is a backdoor provision that allows the agency to vastly expand its regulatory authority and encroach on the constitutional rights of the States to regulate their own energy sectors, based on the actions of a foreign nation and the whims of the executive branch.
It is irresponsible to allow unelected bureaucrats at the EPA to retain the ability to seize such an expansive authority. If the U.S. government wants to pursue such a policy, one that, in my opinion, is constitutionally suspect, it should be done through an explicit congressional delegation of authority on a case-by-case basis.
A similar amendment has passed the House during the interior and environmental appropriations packages for the
previous 2 fiscal years, Mr. Chairman. I urge my colleagues to take back our Article I authority and support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, are we or are we not a sovereign Nation? I think that most people would agree that we are, and, as such, we don't take issue with the Congress, with the administration doing its job to keep our air clean and to make treaties and provisions with other nations.
But what we do take issue with is other nations working with, potentially, this administration, any administration, that comes up with an agreement not ratified by the American people, not ratified by this body or the body on the other side of the Capitol to encroach upon the constitutional rights of States to regulate their own environmental emissions, as provided.
So it is not a question of whether we think that the climate isn't changing, man has something to do with it, or whether it should be regulated or how it should be regulated. It is a question of the authority vested in the Constitution, in these bodies, and the ones that are not.
It is not the place of unelected bureaucrats or individuals to make an agreement with some other nation, then to impose itself on the States individually. That is all we are saying here. It has passed on numerous occasions because it is good.
The President got us out of the Paris climate agreement, but that doesn't mean that some other administration in the future might make another agreement that, yet again, the American people had no part in; neither did this body. So this just ensures that if that is the case, we have the protection that this body should provide.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.