Ken Calvert

Mr. CALVERT

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

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. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting. We hear the devastating effects from people who represent these States that are rich in natural resources and what is happening in coal country and to the oil industry and the rest. I respect their opinion and I, obviously, oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, 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. 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. 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, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. CALVERT. Obviously, this is an emotional subject. It is not just water that is going to the Central Valley, also to the southern California region for the millions of people who live there. We don't want to see water wasted. This year, we saw hundreds and hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of water being released through the delta, really, with not saving one fish. Even independent agencies will privately agree that they were overly conservative when they were managing the pump operations of late. So this suffering that is going on is terrible. It needs to come to an end. I certainly oppose this amendment and urge a ``no'' vote. Mr. 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. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, is there any time left for the opposition?

Mr. CALVERT

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

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

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

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), a valued member of our Interior Subcommittee, for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I would urge adoption of the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to an individual whose dedication and contributions to Riverside County, California, are exceptional. On June 22nd, Sue McKee will be retiring from the University of California, Riverside (UCR) after nearly 25 years of dedicated service. Sue is the Assistant Vice Chancellor of Governmental and Community Relations at UCR and she has worked tirelessly in that role as an advocate for UCR at the local, state, and federal levels. Her more recent accomplishments include securing funding for the first public medical school in California in over 40 years and relocating the California Air Resources Board (CARB) air pollution lab to the UCR campus. This new CARB facility, combined with UCR's existing related expertise through its Center for Environmental Research and Technology, will make Riverside the world's center for transportation and air quality research--and, in large part, this achievement is thanks to Sue McKee. Sue is a wife, a mother, and an amazing champion for the Inland Empire. In addition to serving UCR, she has served her community by advocating for those less fortunate and mentoring the next generation of Inland Empire leaders and advocates. Sue serves as the Chair of the Riverside County's Community Action Partnership and is a former Program Chair for Leadership Riverside through the Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce. Sue also has donated her time to the Childhood Cancer Foundation of Southern California, the Raincross Group, and the Regional Advisory Board of the Big Brothers Big Sisters of the Inland Empire. I have had the privilege of knowing Sue McKee for nearly 20 years. During that time, I have found her to be the best kind of advocate through her compassion, intellect, sense of humor, and her commitment to UCR's mission to serve its students and the region. I applaud Sue's service and I will truly miss working with her upon her retirement. However, her service and her achievements will have a longstanding and truly positive impact on our community.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, today is a good day for the Inland Empire region in southern California. For many years now, our region has advocated for restoring local control of Ontario International Airport and putting the future growth of air travel in our own hands. My legislation that the House is considering today, H.R. 4369, is one of the final necessary steps that will facilitate the transfer of Ontario International Airport from the city of Los Angeles to the Ontario International Airport Authority. Both the cities of Ontario and Los Angeles, as well as FAA staff, have put in hundreds of hours of effort to approve and prepare for the management transfer of this hub airport. When both Ontario International Airport and Los Angeles International Airport were operated by the same agencies, passenger facility charges, or PFCs, collected at one airport could be used for the projects at the other one. Going forward, H.R. 4369 will enable a certain amount of passenger facility charges collected at the now independent Ontario International Airport to be used for projects at Los Angeles International Airport as a way to pay back LAX for sharing its passenger facility charges in the past years. Since it is not possible under existing law today, we are fixing this glitch. This legislation has broad bipartisan support and will not cost the taxpayers a penny. Furthermore, the bill does nothing to increase passenger facility charges or any other fees for airport passengers. H.R. 4369 is supported by all stakeholders, including the FAA, the City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles World Airports, the City of Ontario, and the Ontario International Airport Authority. The bill is supported by the entire bipartisan Inland Empire delegation, including Representative Torres, Representative Aguilar, Representative Cook, Representative Royce, Representative Ruiz, and Representative Takano. Over in the Senate, Senator Feinstein has introduced identical legislation, and I am hopeful the Senate can quickly approve this bill after we pass it here today. There have been many people involved in this effort over the past few years. I want to specifically thank FAA Administrator Michael Huerta, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, Ontario Councilmen Alan Wapner and Jim Bowman, as well as the rest of the Ontario City Council and other elected officials from throughout the Inland Empire who have supported restoring local control of Ontario Airport. I also want to thank Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster for helping us move this important legislation to the House floor today. The Inland Empire has and continues to be one of the fastest growing regions in California and in the Nation, and it is far past time that we control our own aviation future. I am confident, with local control restored, Ontario International Airport will be a significant contributor to future economic growth in our region. I urge all my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, today, the Army celebrates its 241st birthday and a long, proud history of defending our great Nation. The Army and all of our military branches make up the finest fighting force in the world because of our extraordinary men and women who serve in them and because they have the tools that are necessary to carry out their missions. Just days ago, we saw a tragic and horrific reminder in Orlando that we are a Nation very much at war with radical Islamic extremists. While there may be differing opinions on what steps our country can and should do to stop attacks on our homeland, there should be no daylight between all Members of this body in our commitment to ensuring our soldiers have the resources necessary to win this war. I want to thank my friend and chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, Rodney Frelinghuysen, and all of my Appropriations Committee colleagues for putting together a good bill that deserves all our support. I urge all my colleagues to vote for this bill and continue to support our men and women in uniform as they defend our great Nation.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, while there may be instances in which greater coordination would be helpful in ensuring our ocean and coastal resources are available to future generations, any such coordination must be done carefully to protect against Federal overreach. As we have seen recently with the proposed rule to redefine waters of the United States, strong congressional oversight is needed to ensure that we protect private property rights. Unfortunately, the way the administration developed its National Ocean Policy, it increases the opportunities for overreach. The implementation plan is so broad and so sweeping, that it may allow the Federal Government to effect agricultural practices, mining, energy producers, fishermen, and anyone else whose actions may have an impact on the oceans. The fact is the administration did not work with Congress to develop this plan and has even refused to provide relevant information to Congress, so we can't be sure how sweeping it actually will be. That is why I support the language in the underlying bill and, therefore, oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, here we go. This last winter, as the gentleman pointed out, actually upwards of 200,000 cubic feet per second were moving through the delta. On days like that, we were pumping 2,300 cubic feet per second at the pumps. Now, the Governor believes--and many believe--that the solution, because they were afraid it was going to reverse flow, the delta, when 200,000 cubic feet are moving through the delta, is to build these tunnels. And now, if these tunnels are built, we are saying we are going to suck dry the Sacramento River. Come on. That couldn't happen. We can't even pump up to the biological opinion. We are not talking about eviscerating the Endangered Species Act. We are talking about pumping water up to the biological opinion of 5,000 cubic feet per second. We all know that those pumps are capable of pumping up to 11,000 cubic feet per second. They couldn't even pump 15,000 cubic feet per second, because they can only go up to 11,000 cubic feet. Saying that, this is a solution that is on the table. It has been thought out. It costs a lot of money. I know there are some questions that have to be answered. But the solution that the gentleman keeps bringing up is a solution that nobody can agree to. So we are doing the best we can in the majority to make sure that we have water for the people in the Central Valley--and, by the way, for southern California, where our economy is suffering because of this; certainly, the Central Valley is suffering because of this--and to come up with solutions that can work.

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

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chair, water wars. I have been at this for a while, too, as my friend from northern California has. People are suffering right now for no good reason. According to independent studies, under the existing biological opinions, over a million acre feet of water have been wasted because of non-pumping. What I mean by ``wasted'' is not one fish--not one smelt, not one salmon--would have been lost in the delta because of pumping; but because of overcautiousness on the part of the Department of the Interior and the Department of Fish and Wildlife, we have let that water go. Tell that to the people who live in that shanty town. Tell that to the people who actually import produce from China to live on. I know that people like to paint us as the party that doesn't care about the Hispanic community. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of people who have been put out of work in the Central Valley. This is wrong. I congratulate Mr. Valadao for the hard work and the passion that he has put into this because he cares about the people he represents, and we should care about them, too. There is no good reason why we have let this happen. We have allowed this to happen for a number of reasons, most of which don't make any sense to most people who understand this stuff. We have a chance, I think, to fix this and to pass Mr. Valadao's legislation. Let's move on.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to have had the opportunity to testify today at the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Constitution and Civil Justice Hearing, ``Examining Legislation to Promote the Effective Enforcement of the ADA's Public Accommodation Provisions.'' As you know, the Americans with Disabilities Act is undoubtedly one of the most important pieces of civil rights legislation. We can all agree that providing all Americans with access to public accommodations is an invaluable legislative objective. The purpose of the ADA is to ensure access for the disabled to public accommodation and provide appropriate remedial action for those who have suffered harm as a result of noncompliance. Although there are times when litigation by harmed individuals is necessary, there are an increasing number of lawsuits brought under the ADA that are based upon a desire to achieve financial settlements rather than to achieve the appropriate modifications for access. These lawsuits filed by serial litigants, often referred to as ``drive-by lawsuits,'' place exorbitant legal fees on small businesses, and often times business owners are unaware of the specific nature of the allegations brought against them. In early 2011, frivolous ADA lawsuits against small businesses reached an all-time high throughout California, and as a result, my good friend and colleague, former Congressman Dan Lungren (R-CA), championed the issue and introduced the original ACCESS Act (H.R. 3356) in the 112th Congress. I was pleased to have been afforded the opportunity to take over the legislation for reintroduction beginning in the 113th Congress. In January 2015, I reintroduced the legislation as H.R. 241, the ACCESS Act (ADA Compliance for Customer Entry to Stores and Services). H.R. 241 is a cost-free and commonsense piece of legislation that would alleviate the financial burden small businesses are facing, while still fulfilling the purpose of the ADA. Any person aggrieved by a violation of the ADA would provide the owner or operator with a written notice of the violation, specific enough to allow such owner or operator to identify the barrier to their access. Within 60 days the owner or operator would be required to provide the aggrieved person with a description outlining improvements that would be made to address the barrier. The owner or operator would then have 120 days to make the improvement. The failure to meet any of these conditions would allow the lawsuit to go forward. I think we can all agree that we must ensure that individuals with disabilities are afforded the same access and opportunities as those without disabilities. Frivolous lawsuits do not accomplish this goal. Allowing small business owners and cities alike to fix ADA violations within 120 days, rather than waiting for lengthy legal battles to play out, is a more thoughtful, timely, and reasonable approach. While the ADA is a national law, California has become ground zero for ADA violation lawsuits. In fact, California is home to more federal disability lawsuits than the next four states combined. A 2014 report determined that since 2005, more than 10,000 federal ADA lawsuits had been filed in the five states with the highest disabled populations; 7,188 of which were filed in California. Violating the ADA in California carries a minimum $4,000 penalty in addition to the plaintiffs legal fees. As of 2014, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 31 individuals made up at least 56 percent of federal disability lawsuits in California. As was mentioned during the second panel of today's hearing, California has 12 percent of the nation's disabled population, but accounts for over 40 percent of ADA lawsuits. Those figures and the real life toll it takes on small business owners, are why I introduced this legislation to allow for a ``fix-it'' period. However, it is clear that this is not just a major problem in California. The introduction, in November 2015, of similar legislation by the gentleman from Texas, Representative Ted Poe, shows just that. His legislation authorizes a training and education component for the affected community and Certified Access Specialists, which I would welcome and embrace as an amendment to my bill. This is also a bipartisan issue supported by states. I was pleased to see that California SB 269 passed unanimously in the State Assembly and Senate, and was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown on May 10th, 2016. SB 269 was authored by a friend of mine, Democratic State Senator, Gen. Richard Roth. The legislation is similar to the ACCESS Act in that it allows businesses to take immediate steps to become accessible by providing them with 120 days, from receipt of a Certified Access Specialist report, to resolve any identified violations without being subject to litigation costs or statutory penalties. I worry that with California acting to curb these lawsuits, some of these serial litigants will try their trade in other states. Without question, the ACCESS Act will ensure that the ADA is used for its true purpose of guaranteed accessibility to public accommodations for all Americans while eliminating abusive, costly and unnecessary lawsuits for small business owners. It is more important than ever that the House of Representatives act to move this vital piece of legislation.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, Chairman Mac Thornberry, and Ranking Member Adam Smith, I rise in support of Rules Amendment Number 161 to H.R. 4909, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal year 2017. However, I would first like to thank you for your thoughtful approach in writing this year's bill; it was not an easy task. The particular focus on end-force readiness restoration is to be commended; we cannot ask members of the armed forces to defend their country and democracy without adequately outfitting and training the soldier, unit and force. Additionally, I am pleased to see the NDAA's approach toward much needed acquisition reform, healthcare reform, Goldwater Nichols reform and more. However, as we debate today it is incumbent on us as Members of Congress to continue the discussion about the right mix of active duty, civilian and contractors at the Department of Defense. The recent uniformed military drawdown has not been accompanied by an equivalent reduction of either the civilian or contractor work force as in drawdowns in the past. A large, disproportionate, and duplicative work force coupled with bureaucratic, structural inefficiencies has detracted from the Pentagon's production of combat power and its ability to modernize. Right sizing the civilian workforce must be multifaceted, statutory in number, and implemented with executive discretion. Across the board cuts to the defense civilian workforce are not the answer. Spending on contract services is over 50 percent of all Department of Defense purchases even as the total defense budget has dropped. Expenditures in service contracting lack appropriate oversight, accountability, and scrutiny. However, no proper approach to addressing the civilian workforce may be accomplished without first understanding who these civilian workers are, where they are located, and what jobs they are performing. My amendment, Rules Committee Number 161, seeks a report by the Department of Defense on the total civilian workforce picture. In the past, reports have been requested but are fragmented in nature. The report I am requesting will require a projection from fiscal years 2017 through 2020 of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) and contractor employees broken down into several sub-categories including location, job function, General Schedule (GS) level, and date of when the job was created. As we debate the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), it is incumbent on us as Members of Congress to continue the discussion about the right mix of active duty, civilian and contractors at DoD.