Ken Calvert

Mr. CALVERT

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

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I would say to my friend that we are making a statement. There is no money to close offices in this budget, so I would urge a ``no'' vote. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, as I noted in our full committee markup in July, there are no regional closures proposed in this legislation; therefore, it is an unnecessary amendment. This topic was discussed at our EPA hearing in June. Administrator Pruitt called rumors about regional closures ``pure legend.'' Further, it costs money to close regional offices and move staff, and funding has not been requested to do so. In addition, the closure of regional offices is something the administration would need to propose and go through the deliberative process here in Congress. It would require a multiyear effort. As a wise man within the administration once said, ``we can close any lab or Federal building that is not located in Washington, D.C., or in a congressional district.'' As the fiscal year 2018 process has already demonstrated, while the President may propose changes, Congress has the final say in funding decisions. In addition, this amendment would have unintended consequences as agencies review their footprints and propose ways to reduce their rent, security, utility costs, and operate more efficiently. All executive branch agencies are required to submit plans to the President on ways to operate more efficiently. We need to see these plans before jumping to any conclusions. So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I would like to remind the gentleman, with this bill, we have cut EPA almost 30 percent since 2010. While we have expressed a number of frustrations with EPA's overreach over the last few years, and even here today, I cannot support an amendment with cuts of this magnitude which put important programs at risk. An across-the-board cut of this magnitude would reduce priorities like the geographic programs, Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico, and others, State recovering loan funds, the 28 national estuary programs, several State grants like radon, lead, and beach protection, just to name a few. These are programs proposed for elimination in the President's budget that Members on both sides of the aisle requested funding in this bill. In fact, I had 5,200 requests. The amendment would also significantly reduce funding for the Superfund program. The proposed budget would propose to reduce the program by 31 percent, which would impact new cleanups and slow ongoing cleanups. The President's budget also proposed to reduce the State categorical grants by 44 percent and cut the Diesel Emission Reduction Grants by 83 percent, which are essential to air quality in my home State of California. States need resources to best serve our constituents back home; therefore, I think this amendment just goes too far. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Minnesota.

Mr. CALVERT. It is interesting that we are having a disagreement on how much we should cut the EPA. It is not the argument that we are cutting the EPA. Obviously, that is a fact. We have cut the EPA with this upcoming budget by 37 percent over the last few years. I know that the Administrator is doing a lot to create efficiencies with the EPA and to operate that absolutely more effectively for our health and for the benefit of the United States. Madam Chair, with that, I believe this amendment just simply goes too far. I oppose this amendment and would urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Minnesota.

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. Because the administration has already withdrawn the referenced social cost of carbon guidance in the March energy independence executive order, this is an amendment we can support. I support the amendment.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am certainly prepared to accept this amendment. I understand the importance of the program to the gentleman from Pennsylvania and other Members in the Appalachian region. I look forward to working with him and all of the interested Members. Mr. Chairman, I encourage adoption of the amendment.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned at our full committee markup, I understood that my colleague, Dr. Harris, was offering his amendment to address local concerns from his residents with respect to the visibility of offshore turbines. With all of these offshore projects, many varying viewpoints need to be taken into account. I appreciate that we have been able to discuss many of these views and concerns here today. It is my hope that we can work with the authorizing committees of jurisdiction, the administration, and all interested stakeholders to identify some better solutions as we move forward through the fiscal year 2018 process. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, given our allocation, which was $824 million below the fiscal year 2017 level, we had to find areas to trim. It is also important to note that the bill does not support the elimination of the program, as has been proposed in the President's budget. It was the committee's effort to find some middle ground. While I can certainly appreciate the gentleman's interest to maintain fiscal year 2017 enacted level, the allocation of the committee doesn't support those levels. So, therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Chairman Frelinghuysen, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance) for the purpose of entering into a colloquy.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I support the gentleman's amendment because water infrastructure remains a top priority of this committee. I urge adoption of the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I understand the gentleman's concerns. I would suggest that he go down to the Administrator's office, our new Administrator, Mr. Pruitt, and meet with him. I don't think that there is any desire on his part to militarize the Environmental Protection Agency, and I think that he will see this new Administrator wanting to do the right thing. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. CALVERT

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

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to jump up and support this amendment. Obviously, the agency has not leaped fast enough and problems persist. So I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, and I know it will squeak by with a large margin.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, this amendment would prevent the Department of the Interior from performing a necessary and thorough review of the existing 5-year plan. Meanwhile, the committee encouraged a review of the 5-year plan in the 2017 omnibus, which we just enacted just a few months ago. For these reasons and others, I certainly urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.