Ken Calvert

Mr. CALVERT

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

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, my friend wants to ensure that funds are being expended on efforts to address climate change. I understand that. Simply put, though, we are not here to write blank checks. Some programs may have merit; many certainly do not. We would not be doing our jobs if we allow the Secretary of the Interior to just unilaterally make policy decisions without allowing Congress to weigh in with appropriate policy debates, and certainly, we are not going to allow a future Secretary to be bound by a prior Secretary's fiat without congressional input. In the meantime, we must use congressional power of the purse to rein in the executive branch overreach. I would think that whoever is in power, we cannot allow an executive to continue to use executive orders in violation of the separation of powers. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 820, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. CALVERT. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I certainly agree with the gentleman that permit holders should meet all their existing requirements in order to renew their permits, and I would accept this amendment.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, the majority and the minority have agreed to these amendments en bloc. They are noncontroversial amendments that affect a variety of issues. Additionally, the sponsors of the amendments have agreed to consideration of these amendments en bloc. I urge adoption of the amendments. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with the amendment and am willing to accept the amendment.

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

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, obviously, being from California, we have our own versions of what is going on with the drought, and certainly the science that I look at is different than the gentleman's look at the science that he is at; but that is what policy debates are all about. We should debate that here in the Congress, we should debate that in the Senate, and it shouldn't be decisions that are unilaterally made by any President of the United States. That is why we have a democracy here, not a king. I oppose this amendment, and I encourage all of the Members here to oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the gentleman's amendment. I have experience firsthand with Mrs. Kirkpatrick, as a matter of fact, and with Ms. McCollum. We were at the Navajo reservation about a year ago, and my back is still hurting from the road that we were on. It was quite an experience. So they need help. I think this is a very modest amount of money. I appreciate the support that our colleagues give to Indian Country. They certainly deserve it. I would encourage adoption of this amendment.

Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I am in opposition to this amendment. I urge everyone to vote ``no.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, the administration, as already mentioned, already removed the Atlantic leases from consideration in the 5-year lease plan from 2017 to 2022. This language is completely unnecessary, and I urge all the Members to oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

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

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, as I mentioned earlier, we already had a number of debates about each of the provisions that the gentleman is trying to strike; therefore, this amendment is totally unnecessary. Nevertheless, the committee included each of these provisions for sound reasons, and each have their own merit. Broadly speaking, these policy provisions are included in the bill to put the brakes on flawed policies that this administration is trying to implement. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, Jim Florio was a good friend of mine, a great guy. As I mentioned during the debate on the gentleman's previous Superfund amendment, I certainly appreciate the gentleman's support for robust funding for the Superfund program, particularly the cleanup program. I agree, we need to make progress to address the backlog of 1,300 sites, as the gentleman mentioned, on the national priorities list, and the bill proposes to do so with the $40.1 million increase for cleanup work. However, the gentleman's amendment proposes to increase EPA's enforcement budget by $15.2 million, offset by other reductions within the Superfund account. Presumably, those reductions would come at the expense of the cleanup program. So I reluctantly oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Certainly, I sympathize with what the gentleman is trying to do, but we just don't agree to the offset. I urge opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to support the en bloc amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 820, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I would share my concern about the growth of the utilization of these types of weapons within various agencies, not just within the EPA, and whether or not the U.S. Marshals office, which was used in the past, shouldn't be brought back to some degree, especially the SWAT teams and so forth, which are highly trained in sometimes very delicate situations. Training, of course, as we know, is extremely important, and the folks who work in various agencies may not get the type of training they need in sometimes very difficult situations. I think we need to look at it, but these agents who are working for the Environmental Protection Agency sometimes need to protect themselves. We can debate whether or not they need the type of ammunition and the types of guns that the gentleman is talking about. I think that, right now, this amendment goes too far. Again, I will work with the gentleman down the road because I do have some concerns about that. It is not just the EPA. We have got a number of agencies that seem to be arming themselves, which I have some concerns about. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.