Ken Calvert

Mr. CALVERT

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

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, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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).

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

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

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.

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. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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. I reserve the balance of my time.

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, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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.

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

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

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

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. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?

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, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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.