Ken Calvert

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, right now we are spending $80 million a year in this appropriation bill. It will double to $160 million in 4 years to store horses that we are presently doing. Also, as the gentleman is aware, we are concerned not just about the health of the herds--some of these herds are in very poor health--but also about the health of the range. Some areas are way overutilized. So we need to work with the gentleman to find out a way to deal with this problem because we just can't continue to ignore this issue. It is a growing problem. I was just over in Death Valley. We have in some cases irreversible environmental damage that is being done by wild burros in Death Valley. So I look forward to working with the gentleman to resolve this problem. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), the chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, 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. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman that current law regarding public lands must be followed. There is nothing in this bill that contradicts that. We are not going to be getting rid of public lands in this bill. As such, there is no purpose or relevance for this, so I would oppose this. I think this is trying to get people all excited that we are going to be getting rid of public lands in this bill, which is not true. I encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, there is no need for this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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, just call me old-fashioned. I just think that the folks that are elected to office should have some authority around this town. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. CALVERT. If you come by my office, the gentlewoman can meet our dog, Callie, whom we refer to as the ``barker of the House.'' As a fellow dog lover, I have no problem with the gentlewoman's amendment and would happily support it.

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, 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, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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. Chairman, if the gentleman from Florida wants to cut it short, I will accept the amendment right now.

Mr. CALVERT. First, I want to say I have enjoyed serving with the gentlewoman from California for a number of years. We have shared many a plane ride back and forth here to Washington, D.C., but we disagree on this issue. In May, the Department of the Interior issued a finding of no significant impact with respect to these operations. This followed a review of 23 oil and gas platforms currently operating off the shore of California. The review drew upon the best available science and reaffirms these operations are operating as safely as they should. The amendment is nothing more than another attempt to restrict offshore development for oil and gas. I oppose the amendment and encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, my friend wants to ensure that funds are being expended on an executive order issued by the President. Simply put, the President did not consult Congress on these executive orders. Again, call me old-fashioned, but around here you should be able to pass a law in the House of Representatives, the United States Senate, have it signed, and not do things unilaterally. Obviously, we were not consulted. From the perspective of the majority, we have a problem with this executive order. We would not be doing our jobs if we allowed the President to unilaterally make policy decisions without Congress having the ability to weigh in with these appropriate policy debates. In the meantime, we must use our congressional power of the purse to rein in the executive branch overreach. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I urge everyone to vote ``no'' on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would like to say that BSEE has done an enormous amount of study and assessment. They continue to do so as they look at the operations of oil and gas industry in California, certainly off the coast of California. Many people don't realize how large a producer the State of California is in the oil and gas industry. It has a long history in the State of California, one of the largest oil companies in the country, Chevron, still one of the few that operates out of the State of California, and we are certainly very proud of that. It has not been a perfect history, but the science has improved. The production practices have improved, and it is certainly an important part of our economy, and we want to make sure that they continue to operate safely. We are going to make sure that these agencies do the necessary regulatory work that they need to do. So I am opposed to this amendment. I yield back 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.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.