Ken Calvert

Mr. CALVERT

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

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, 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. I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

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.

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, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that amendment Nos. 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40 printed in House Report 114-683, be considered en bloc.

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.

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

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

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 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.

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. 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, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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. I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring to the floor H.R. 5538, the fiscal year 2017 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. As we begin, I want to personally thank Chairman Rogers for his leadership and support. I also want to thank my good friend and our ranking member, Ms. McCollum, for her partnership and work on this bill and to say a very happy birthday. Finally, I want to thank each of our subcommittee members for their assistance and hard work on the legislation before us. The fiscal year 2017 Interior and Environment bill is funded at $32.095 billion, which is $64 million below the FY 2016 enacted level and $1 billion below the budget request. The committee has provided robust wildland fire funding in this bill. Fire suppression accounts are again fully funded at the 10-year average level, which rose by $133 million from last year. The committee also addressed concerns about forest health and active forest management, and provided a $30 million increase for hazardous fuels. This bill also makes critical investments in Indian Country. Overall, funding for the Bureaus of Indian Affairs and Education is increased by $72 million, or 3 percent, while funding for the Indian Health Service is increased by $271 million, or 6 percent, from fiscal year 2016 levels. This is the largest increase in this bill. The bill provides for $2.9 billion for the National Park Service, including more than $65 million in new funding to address the maintenance backlog and other priorities related to the Park Service centennial. The bill provides $480 million to fully fund payments in lieu of taxes, PILT, in year 2017. We have also addressed a number of concerns within the Fish and Wildlife Service. The bill continues funding for popular cost-shared grant programs. It also provides additional funds to combat international wildlife trafficking, protects fish hatcheries from cuts and closures, continues fighting to fight invasive species, and reduces the backlog of species that are covered but not yet delisted. The bill provides $322 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund programs that enjoy broad, bipartisan support. Funding for EPA is reduced by $164 million from fiscal year 2016 enacted levels. Again this year, there is a great deal of concern over the number of regulatory actions being pursued by EPA in the absence of legislation and without clear congressional direction. For this reason, the bill includes a number of provisions to stop unnecessary and damaging regulatory overreach by the Agency. Before closing, I would like to make an additional point about the challenges facing Flint, Michigan, and other communities across the country addressing lead in drinking water. This is an issue of great concern to the committee members. It is not a partisan issue. What occurred in Flint has called greater attention to aging infrastructure and the need for prudent management and oversight of water systems. This bill provides targeted investments and prioritizes resources that will help the EPA and Michigan respond to Flint and help other States and communities address the needs of their water systems. The bill provides an increase of $207 million above the fiscal year 2016 enacted level for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. It also includes $50 million for the new Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation, otherwise known as WIFIA, program, which may be leveraged through direct Federal loans or loan guarantees to fund up to $3 billion to $5 billion worth of water infrastructure projects nationwide. In addition, the bill provides increases for State grants for improved State oversight and operations of drinking water systems and for communities to work on integrated plans for pipe replacement. The bill also directs the GAO to assess the number of lead service lines by State. Lastly, the committee is taking an additional step to provide relief for communities like Flint by including bill language that allows States to use State revolving fund dollars to forgive a portion of a community's outstanding loans. This and other steps taken in this bill will have a real impact. In closing, I want to thank the staff on both sides for their hard work on this bill. On the minority side, I would like to thank Rita Culp, Jocelyn Hunn, Joe Carlile, and Rebecca Taylor. Their work is very much appreciated. On the majority side, I would like to thank our subcommittee staff: Kristin Richmond, Jackie Kilroy, Betsy Bina, Jason Gray, Darren Benjamin, and, of course, our chief clerk Dave LesStrang. I would also like to thank Ian Foley, Rebecca Keightley, Molly Lowe, and Tricia Evans on my personal staff, and my chief of staff, David Ramey. Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill and it deserves Members' support. I reserve the balance of my time. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY16.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY16.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY16.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY16.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY16.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY16.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY16.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY16.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY16.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY16.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY16.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY16.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY16.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY16.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY16.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY16.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY16.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY16.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY16.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY16.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY16.021