Ken Calvert

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I recognize and support the need for a right size law enforcement presence wherever people visit Federal lands, but this amendment would implement the budget request to hire 16 more Federal wildlife fire officers primarily in urban areas. Urban areas already have a strong local law enforcement presence, so the Federal Government should first look to contract with local law enforcement before deciding to hire more Federal officers. Furthermore, of all the law enforcement responsibilities covered in this bill, the biggest gap exists on Indian reservations, where 911 response times are often measured in hours and days instead of minutes. Before we pull more money out of the account that pays unsung civil servants to carry out the most fundamental functions of the department, let's make sure we are putting the dollars where they are needed the most. I encourage the rest of my colleagues to oppose the 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, I thank the Congressman from Georgia (Mr. Graves), a member of our committee who has been closely tracking this. I appreciate his attention to the issue and the update regarding EPA's activities to implement the direction in fiscal year 2016 report. I look forward to working with him to address this as we move forward with the fiscal year 2017 process.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time remains?

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

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, unfortunately, the bill before us already funds the New England National Scenic Trail at the requested level, so any additional funds are not necessary at this time. I reluctantly urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5538, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I encourage opposition to this amendment. I yield back 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, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?

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. Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate the intent of the gentleman's amendment to increase funding for the Superfund, something that we all support, it is important that Members understand two things: First, top line funding for the Superfund is already increased in the bill by $27 million from the FY16 enacted level. Second, the gentleman proposes to reduce funding for the Payments in Lieu of Taxes, PILT, program which is critical to counties and local governments in 49 States, including New Jersey, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. territories. PILT is fully funded in this bill. It is a program supported by a large, bipartisan majority in the House. A reduction in the PILT funding would have a detrimental effect on counties and local governments across the country. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the gentleman's amendment. I yield back 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, 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. Mr. Chair, the Supreme Court has ruled on a number of occasions that the EPA does not have the authority to rewrite the Clean Air Act, as it has been attempting to do. In February, the Supreme Court issued a stay on the EPA's greenhouse gas rule. It is no surprise that the EPA finds itself on shaky legal ground as it attempts to rely on limited authorities to write a rule that would vastly expand its reach. This administration's policies, regulations, and rhetoric are all aimed at making energy more expensive in America. The administration cannot be allowed to change the laws of the land administratively, which is why the language in this bill should remain in this bill. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment to strike. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, it is my understanding that the overall rule is supported broadly by many in the truck and the manufacturing industry. However, as any rule, there are some specifics that do need to be ironed out, and my colleague has narrowly tailored this amendment to address concerns within the EPA's rule. So you really can't drive a truck through it. I support this language in the Interior bill. Mr. Chair, I urge Members to vote ``aye'' on this amendment.

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

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

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