Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is duplicative. It ignores the existing contractor award system that is already in place. Contracting officers must already consult the system for award management to ensure a contractor can be awarded a contract. Businesses on the excluded parties list system have been suspended or debarred through a due process system and may not be eligible to receive or renew Federal contracts for such cited offenses.

The best way to ensure that the government contracts with or provides grants to the best employers is to enforce the existing suspension and debarment system.

Bad actors who are in violation of the basic worker protections should not be awarded Federal contracts. That is why the Federal Government already has a system in place to deny Federal contracts to bad actors. If a contractor fails to maintain high standards of integrity and business ethics, agencies already have the authority to suspend or debar the employer from government contracting. In 2014, Federal agencies issued more than 1,000 suspensions and nearly 2,000 debarments to employers who bid on Federal contracts.

The amendment would delay the procurement process with harmful consequences. On numerous occasions, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office has highlighted costly litigation stemming from complex regulatory rules, including from the Fair Labor Standards Act.

This amendment punishes employers who may unknowingly or unwillingly get caught in the Federal Government's maze of bureaucratic rules and reporting requirements. The procurement process is already plagued by delays and inefficiencies.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, we have a process in place. I certainly won't support subjective Federal decision-makers deciding who is a good employer and who is a bad employer. As a former employer myself, I know that most employers in this country are good people who want to make sure that people have good jobs.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate the intent of the gentleman's amendment to increase funding for the Superfund, something that we all support, it is important that Members understand two things: First, top line funding for the Superfund is already increased in the bill by $27 million from the FY16 enacted level.

Second, the gentleman proposes to reduce funding for the Payments in Lieu of Taxes, PILT, program which is critical to counties and local governments in 49 States, including New Jersey, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. territories. PILT is fully funded in this bill. It is a program supported by a large, bipartisan majority in the House. A reduction in the PILT funding would have a detrimental effect on counties and local governments across the country.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, in 2008, the Office of Surface Mining finalized revisions to the stream zone buffer rule in an open and transparent manner. After taking office, the Obama administration put on hold that rule and proposed a different rule last year without the input of the States.

The administration's approach under the new rule has been anything but collaborative and inclusive, and States have been totally shut out of the process. In response, the FY16 omnibus includes language to bring the States and the administration back together. To date, OSM has not shared all documents with the States and refuses to meet with the States that have requested meetings.

The American people expect more--more openness and transparency from their government--and that is why this funding prohibition must remain in the base bill.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and reject this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman,

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, the bill includes section 122 because the Bureau of Land Management does not have the authority to regulate methane emissions. Congress has given that authority to the Environmental Protection Agency. BLM's proposed regulation is just another part of the administration's overly aggressive regulatory agenda and overly broad interpretation of current law.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I believe that the Forest Service needs to be more proactive in managing our national forests. The latest estimates show that there are nearly 66 million dead and dying trees in California right now. This sets the stage for what could be a disastrous fire seed. We simply must get ahead of this situation. This is why we provided significant increases for hazardous fuel and management programs in this bill, but certainly we would support any additional help.

I would move to adopt this very important amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. I just want to make a point.

I appreciate the gentleman's interest in forestry issues and his support for changing the way we budget for catastrophic wildland fires. An increase in the Forest Service's research capability will help address our forest management issues. I support the amendment, and I certainly urge its adoption.

I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, because the gentleman's amendment restates current law and nothing more, I am more than willing to accept the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I certainly understand the value of EPA's brownfields program. It is highly leveraged and promotes economic development in communities by cleaning up lightly contaminated properties and returning them to beneficial use. These are good things, no doubt about it. That is why the FY 2017 Interior bill continues to provide the brownfields program with $80 million. That is equal to the enacted level.

With limited resources, we need to be strategic about where we provide increases. The FY 2017 bill increases funding to clean up most toxic contaminated Superfund sites across the Nation.

We will debate some Democratic amendments that seek to increase the Superfund account beyond what we have done in the bill in order to match the President's request. Certainly, no one wants to live next to a Superfund site. We have more than 1,300 sites on the Superfund list. These sites contain led, arsenic, cadmium, PCBs, and other highly toxic chemicals. We need to make progress on these 1,300 sites.

So, I must oppose the proposed cut to the Superfund and strongly urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Chair,

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I urge opposition to the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, Ronald Reagan was mentioned in discussing the gentleman's amendment.

Ronald Reagan signed into law CalEPA in the State of California. He also signed into law the first air quality district to regulate air in the United States, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, in the State of California, which was authored by a former colleague of ours named Jerry Lewis.

Clean air is not a political or partisan issue. Certainly, in my area, which has some of the dirtiest air in the United States, we have done a lot to clean up air in our area in California.

We have included a great number of policy provisions to address EPA's regulatory overreach, which I agree with, in this bill. And we have cut the EPA's budget dramatically, which I am in favor of doing. However, I believe that this specific amendment targets a program that is yielding great benefits. When you have a program that is actually working, we ought to keep it.

Many counties across the Nation are currently not in containment with EPA's existing standards for particulate matter and ozone. In many instances, these counties have been in non-containment for years, and those communities need help to improve their air quality.

The Diesel Emission Reduction Act grant program, DERA, is a proven, cost-effective program that provides grants to States to retrofit old diesel engines. So it is a program that supports manufacturing jobs, while also reducing pollution significantly.

Another benefit is these grants are highly leveraged, producing $13 of economic benefit for every Federal dollar that is invested in this program.

Today, newer engines produce 90 percent less toxic emissions than the older diesel engines. However, only 30 percent of trucks and heavy-duty vehicles transition to these cleaner technologies. We need to follow the science and accelerate the replacement of old engines with newer, cleaner engines.

From fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2013, DERA grant funding has replaced or retooled almost 59,000 engines in vehicles, trucks, trains, and other equipment. Again, DERA is an effective, proven program that is delivering results.

I strongly urge Members to vote ``no'' on the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chair,

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I want to point out that DERA is not a regulatory program. The power plant rule that was mentioned earlier is a regulatory program.

What DERA does is replace old technology with the new technology that is up to 90 percent cleaner than the old trucks, old diesel engines that we are presently using. This is working.

I am not in favor of programs and continuous studies and other oppressive methods by EPA that don't produce clean air. This does. It was mentioned that our air is getting cleaner. It is getting cleaner because of programs like DERA that actually work. It is measurable in the South Coast Air Quality Management District and other areas throughout the United States.

They have been able to take these dirty, old trucks off the road. You have all seen them. You have been on the freeway and you see an old diesel truck that is putting out more emissions than virtually everything else around them. You take that truck off the road and it has immediate results.

So let's not get rid of something that works. Let's work against these regulatory programs that oppress the economy and don't have any results.

I might point out, too, the administration has been opposed to DERA. Most of the environmental folks have been opposed because they don't want any carbon in the economy. So they don't want us to clean up diesel because they want to have electric vehicles or zero emission vehicles, which do not have the horsepower or the ability to deliver the goods that we need to have in this Nation.

So, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Madam Chair,

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I might point out that the FBI is not authorized at the present time. We continue to fund it.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I certainly appreciate the gentleman's remarks. It is important that EPA right the wrong that caused the Gold King Mine spill, and ensure that the affected States and Tribes have the resources they need following the spill.

The FY17 bill includes language instructing the EPA to continue to operate a temporary water treatment plant to treat contaminated flows in the area until a more permanent water treatment solution is developed. And the FY16 omnibus instructed EPA to work with the States and tribes on an independent water monitoring plan.

At this time I must respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment, but I would also ask the gentleman to work with me as the committee continues to monitor the implementation and what the EPA is continuing to do.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Again, I appreciate what the gentleman is up to. I wouldn't expect you not to have a vote if you choose to have a vote. Just know that we are working on this, and we will continue to work on this. We will continue to work with your office, but at this point I have to reluctantly oppose the bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I just want to make a point. At this time there are about 66 million dead and dying trees in my State. It is estimated that over the next few years, we could lose up to 120 million trees. That is 20 percent of the entire State of California's total. The trees are dying from drought, severe insect and disease infestation, which only intensifies the potential for disastrous and potentially catastrophic fires.

Unfortunately, we have already seen the loss of life and property from the fast-moving wildfires this year, just most recently, right in the Majority Leader's Congressional District, where people, unfortunately, lost their lives.

I have worked with the senior Senator from California on this. We have used this to the benefit of our State, and other States have used it to the benefit of theirs. This provision is truly limited in nature.

It can only be used on small acreages about 3,000 acres or less.

Madam Chairman, I urge opposition to this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chairwoman, I move to strike the last word.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) for the purpose of colloquy.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Reclaiming my time, I am pleased the gentleman has raised this issue. It is important to work together to ensure law enforcement arrangements are best suited to the populations they serve. I appreciate the gentleman's dedication to this issue, and I look forward to working together to assess the role of law enforcement.

Madam Chairwoman, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chairman, the language in section 425 simply maintains the status quo regarding the definition of fill material for purposes of the Clean Water Act. The existing definition was put in place through a rulemaking initiated by the Clinton administration and finalized by the Bush administration. That rule harmonized the definition on the books of the Corps and EPA so both agencies were working within the same definition.

Any attempts to redefine this important definition could significantly negatively impact the ability of all earthmoving industries--road and highway construction and private and commercial enterprise--to obtain vital CWA section 404 permits.

Changing the definition of fill material could result in the loss of up to 375,000 high-paying mining jobs and jeopardize over 1 million jobs that are dependent upon the economic output generated by these operations.

For these reasons, I support the underlying language and oppose the amendment.

Madam Chairman,

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chairwoman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, let me be clear, the language in the bill does not block EPA's implementation of the rule.

To date, EPA has not yet approved a test kit that meets the false positive and false negative standards. It is yet another example of EPA finalizing a rule with unattainable standards.

Therefore, the FY17 bill prompts the EPA to finish what it intended to do 7 years ago--approve a lead test kit as an alternative to costly third-party lab testing so as to prevent delays and reduce the cost of in-home renovations. Otherwise, EPA should solicit formal public comment on alternatives. The language in the bill prevents EPA from collecting fines for paperwork and recordkeeping violations until EPA solicits public comments on alternatives.

It is straightforward, commonsense language. As such, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, again, we are talking about an agency that can't even get a test right after 7 years. Until they do that, it is yet another example of EPA finalizing a rule with unattainable standards.

I oppose this amendment, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, EPA is under a court order to propose a rule by December 2016, according to a suit brought by the environmentalists, to compel EPA to move forward with more regulation on a schedule they dictate.

BLM, the Forest Service, and the States already impose financial assurance regulations. Therefore, any EPA regulations proposed would be duplicative.

The Western Governors' Association, along with others, have indicated a willingness to work together to ensure that there aren't gaps in the existing regulatory framework so such requirements remain protective. Therefore, there already is a process in place, and language that has been included in the bill, to alleviate the need for EPA to expend taxpayer resources to develop yet another set of duplicative rules.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I encourage opposition to this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, the Supreme Court has ruled on a number of occasions that the EPA does not have the authority to rewrite the Clean Air Act, as it has been attempting to do. In February, the Supreme Court issued a stay on the EPA's greenhouse gas rule. It is no surprise that the EPA finds itself on shaky legal ground as it attempts to rely on limited authorities to write a rule that would vastly expand its reach.

This administration's policies, regulations, and rhetoric are all aimed at making energy more expensive in America. The administration cannot be allowed to change the laws of the land administratively, which is why the language in this bill should remain in this bill.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment to strike.

Mr. Chair,

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I urge opposition to this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, last year, the EPA issued a final rule to disqualify many refrigerants and other chemicals. The rule contained aggressive deadlines for the phase-out of many chemicals. Some of those deadlines applied within 6 months. Historical experience with the Montreal Protocol indicated that manufacturers needed 6-plus years to successfully transition between new materials.

It is nice if the Fortune 100 companies, as the gentleman mentioned, are able to quickly transfer their technologies, but a lot of Main Street people can't. They just simply go broke. Clearly, the EPA chose winners and losers, and for the losers, the timelines are absolutely unworkable. Manufacturers need time to implement engineering and technology changes and to address new risk and safety challenges.

No sooner did the EPA finalize its regulation last year to disqualify certain products than the EPA initiated version 2.0--that the rulemaking is now in the works. This is truly an out-of-control process that is driven by the White House's agenda.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. Chair,

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I have long been concerned with how the EPA conducts its cost-benefit analysis to justify its rulemaking. This is something that the committee has discussed with the EPA on a number of occasions. The Supreme Court recently ruled that EPA's approach to examining costs in their regulations was, at the least, flawed.

The administration's revised estimates for the social cost of carbon help justify, on paper, larger benefits from reducing carbon emissions in any proposed rule. If the administration can inflate the price tag so that the benefits always exceed the costs, then the administration can gold plate required regulations from any department or any agency.

Section 436 says that the administration should reconvene a working group to revise the estimates in a more transparent manner and to make that information available to the public.

I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, this is voodoo environmentalism, so I would absolutely have opposition to this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, prior to finalizing the worker protection rule, the EPA shared a draft with the House Committee on Agriculture. The draft did not contain a section that authorized the use of designated representatives. It was later inserted by the EPA without congressional consultation, and the EPA failed to follow the law that requires consultation with the authorizers on these pesticide rules.

However, the broader concern is the substance of the rule. Farmers are concerned they will have little recourse but to turn over their documents to unauthorized individuals. The section of the rule is ill- advised, and unintended consequences were clearly not considered. The EPA needs to reengage with the authorizing committee and the agricultural community on this.

In the meantime, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, in May, EPA issued regulations for new and existing oil and gas operations. These are the latest steps in the President's climate agenda. EPA pulled the rug out from underneath these companies, working in good faith to share information with the Agency. The industry was making tremendous progress to reduce emissions through voluntary measures. By any measurable degree, they were making tremendous progress.

But this administration feels the need to overregulate the oil and gas industry at every single turn, to use their police powers to bring this industry to their knees. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman,

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins.)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, we included a provision in this prohibiting the Department of the Interior from changing royalty rates in its valuation regulation for coal, oil, and gas on Federal land in order to stem the hemorrhaging of jobs we are seeing in coal country and throughout the United States.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Zinke).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting. We hear the devastating effects from people who represent these States that are rich in natural resources and what is happening in coal country and to the oil industry and the rest. I respect their opinion and I, obviously, oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40 printed in House Report 114-683, be considered en bloc.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, we all know there has been a drought in California, except for this year. This year, we have had some relief from the historic drought conditions that have been certainly made worse by Federal actions, which have, undoubtedly, led to increased pressure on California's ability to provide water throughout the State.

I have been following the flows of water through the delta virtually every day. I remember one day there was 185,000 cubic feet per second moving through the delta. And for whatever reason, decisions were made to only pump 2,500 cubic feet per second when you are allowed under the biological opinion to pump 5,000. I am just going to give that as one example.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao), who has been working very hard in the Central Valley for the farms and his constituents.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Obviously, this is an emotional subject. It is not just water that is going to the Central Valley, also to the southern California region for the millions of people who live there.

We don't want to see water wasted. This year, we saw hundreds and hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of water being released through the delta, really, with not saving one fish. Even independent agencies will privately agree that they were overly conservative when they were managing the pump operations of late.

So this suffering that is going on is terrible. It needs to come to an end. I certainly oppose this amendment and urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Stewart).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, is there any time left for the opposition?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman,

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman,

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, it is my understanding that the overall rule is supported broadly by many in the truck and the manufacturing industry. However, as any rule, there are some specifics that do need to be ironed out, and my colleague has narrowly tailored this amendment to address concerns within the EPA's rule. So you really can't drive a truck through it.

I support this language in the Interior bill.

Mr. Chair, I urge Members to vote ``aye'' on this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I certainly appreciate the gentlewoman's amendment and her intent to reduce spending. As she well knows, we have reduced this bill somewhat over the years, as we have on all of the discretionary accounts that the Appropriations Committee is responsible for.

This really is a decision based upon discussion regarding discretionary accounts versus nondiscretionary accounts. If we could have cut the nondiscretionary accounts as much as we have cut discretionary accounts, we could probably balance the budget plus. But unfortunately, we are not there.

So I rise in opposition to this amendment. I commend my colleague for her consistent work to protect taxpayer dollars, but this is not an approach I can support. While the President's proposed budget exceeds the bill, the increases were paid for with proposals and gimmicks that would never be enacted. This bill makes the tough choices with an allocation that adheres to the current law.

We may not agree that it is enough, but that is what the current law is. So we made trade-offs, and we have done many difficult choices to make this work.

Mr. Chair, I urge opposition to this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Byrne) having assumed the chair, Mr. Collins of Georgia, Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5538) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2017, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source