Ken Calvert

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to a couple whose commitment to each other and to the Riverside County, California community is exceptional. Today, Dan and Joan Hollingsworth will be celebrating their 60th wedding anniversary. This couple has spent their lives raising a beautiful family and serving their local community. Dan and Joan were married in Pomona, California in 1955 at the First Baptist Church. After moving to San Jacinto, California in 1960, the couple established Dan's Dairy, a dairy farm that also featured a cash and carry storefront. Dedicated to his business and the greater farming industry, Dan joined the Board of Directors of the Riverside County Farm Bureau after being asked to serve. Dan later went on to serve as the President of the Farm Bureau Board from 1976 to 1978. Dan also worked as a District Representative for Congressman Victor Veysey. Like her husband, Joan was also very involved with the community over the years. She served on the Riverside County School District Organization, as well as many school, church and charitable organizations. Together Dan and Joan have four children; Bettina Louise, Marcella Joan, Leonard Daniel, and Dennis Clark, 17 grandchildren, and 16 great-grandchildren. Dan and Joan are still both very active community members. They have owned and operated JoDan Farms, a wholesale tree nursery, in Murrieta, California since 1989. Dan also has served as the Chair of the Riverside County Republican Party. In 1989, Dan was chosen to be the recipient of the Bob Howie Award for Outstanding Service to Riverside County Agriculture. More recently, he was also selected to receive the Myra Goldwater Lifetime Achievement Award in recognition of his many contributions to the Riverside County community. Dan and Joan's tireless passion for their family, community service and giving back has contributed immensely to the betterment of the community of Riverside County, California. I am proud to call Dan and Joan close friends, fellow community members and great Americans. Today, I add my voice to the many who will be congratulating them on the celebration of their 60th wedding anniversary.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the career of Kathy Azevedo; a dedicated public servicewoman, community pillar, and local advocate. On Wednesday, November 18, 2015 Azevedo will celebrate her retirement from the Norco City Council after 12 years of service. For over 45 years, Kathy has been a resident and supporter of the Norco community. Before beginning her public service work, Kathy opened her own Jazzercise studio. Azevedo has been a member of the Norco City Council since 2003. In addition to the Norco City Council, she also served as Mayor in 2005, 2009, and 2013. She has also served with the Norco Chamber of Commerce, as a member of the executive committee of the Western Riverside Council of Governments, and as a board member of the YMCA of Corona-Norco. Preservation of Norco's rural and natural environment issues have been at the center of Azevedo's time in office. Her service work has helped lead to the establishment of the Horsetown, USA brand for Norco, establishing the largest city-wide residential zoning codes in the state of California, and the creation of Silverlakes Park, a 144-acre equestrian and recreational land space for the enjoyment of future generations. In addition to her passion for preservation, Councilwoman Azevedo has also been a large champion of women's health and fitness issues. As a cancer survivor, Azevedo brings complexity and depth to these issues through her unique perspective. Kathy serves as a member of the National Grant Review Board for the American Cancer Society. In addition to the American Cancer Society, Azevedo also was an original member of United Norconians for Life Over Alcohol and Drugs (Unload) and the founder of the nonprofit group Support Sisterz. Support Sisterz is a group of cancer survivors who help to provide assistance and support to individuals battling the disease. Outside of her public service, Azevedo is an avid horseback rider and dedicated family woman. She married her high school sweetheart, Danny, and together they have two children and three grandchildren. Her family is her passion and she can often be found on the sidelines of her grandchildren's sporting events. I am proud to call Kathy a fellow community member, American and friend. I add my voice to the many who will be congratulating her on the celebration of her career of serving the city of Norco.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of representing a district that covers a large portion of the reservation that is home to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. From my meetings and visits with members of the Pechanga tribe, as well as with Native Americans from across the country, I know that there is perhaps no greater priority than protecting tribal sovereignty. In 2004, the National Labor Relations Board issued a ruling that, I believe, inappropriately applied the National Labor Relations Act to tribally owned businesses on tribal lands. That ruling was contrary to previous court-established precedents because it clearly conflicts with the Constitution's recognition of tribes as sovereign governments. That's exactly why in 2011, a U.S. District Court in Oklahoma ruled in Chickasaw Nation v. National Labor Relations Board that tribal businesses on tribal land do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Board on grounds of tribal sovereignty. Since that ruling, the National Labor Relations Board has filed an appeal and similar legal conflicts have arisen with other tribes across the country. Rather than allow these lawsuits and legal proceedings to carry on indefinitely, Congress should step in and reaffirm Native American tribal sovereignty by clarifying that the National Labor Relations Act does not apply to tribally owned businesses. As a proud original cosponsor of the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act and friend of our Native American tribes, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this long overdue bill.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, the highway bill, crafted by my friends, Chairman Bill Shuster and Ranking Member Peter DeFazio and the rest of our colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, contains a number of important reforms to our highway programs that will benefit commuters across this country. One of those provisions, section 1313, establishes a pilot program that would allow States to conduct environmental reviews and make approvals for projects under State environmental laws and regulations instead of Federal laws and regulations. It is expected that this pilot program will save highway projects time and money, while maintaining the same environmental standards. The bill permits the State to designate 10 local governments to administer local projects under the new pilot program. However, for large States like California, New York, Texas, and Florida, limiting the program to 10 localities is simply not enough. My amendment would increase the allowable number of localities to 25 in order to allow more communities to take advantage of bringing down the cost and shrinking the amount of time required to complete highway projects. The amendment is supported by the California State Association of Counties, local transit authorities, and CalTrans is not opposed. We are well aware that our need for highway infrastructure continues to outpace the resources we have available. That is exactly why we need to support efforts like my amendment that can make more highway projects a reality by bringing their costs down and completing them more quickly. I urge all my colleagues to support the amendment which will help our communities, counties, and commuters. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to a group of individuals--heroes--who are receiving the recognition and honor they deserve for their service to our country. Operation Recognition is operated by the Riverside County Office of Education with assistance from the Riverside County Department of Veterans' Services. The program awards high school diplomas to veterans who missed completing high school due to military service in World War II, the Korean War, or the Vietnam War, or for those who were interned in WWII Japanese-American relocation camps. A recognition ceremony will be held on November 10, 2015, for the following individuals who received their high school diplomas through Operation Recognition: David Beaudoin; Robert Michael Coe; Benjamin John Cusumano; Harvey Robert Harris; James Esco Lenon, Jr; Joe Pena, Jr; Juan Pena, Jr; Ruben Martinez Peters; Richard Rosenthal; Jacinto Reyes Salinas; Ralph Hamilton Wolfe, Jr. Our country owes a debt of gratitude to all the above recipients for their service and sacrifice. I salute all of these individuals and congratulate them on receiving their high school diploma.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor and privilege to pay tribute to my friend, John Boehner, who has proudly served as Speaker of the House of Representatives since January 5, 2011. As many people know, Speaker Boehner is the son of a bartender and one of 12 children. The people of southwest Ohio have elected him to serve as their Representative in the House on thirteen separate occasions. During his service in the House, Speaker Boehner has distinguished himself by regularly stepping forward to tackle important challenges facing his Ohio constituents and the country. John Boehner was elected to serve as House GOP Conference Chairman following the election of a historic Republican majority in 1992. As Conference Chairman, Boehner played a key role in the adoption of the Balanced Budget Act, which limited spending, helped grow the economy, and resulted in the first budget surplus in decades. He played a central role in shaping and fulfilling the Contract with America. Later while serving as Chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee, Boehner co-wrote the bill establishing the first private school choice program in the District of Columbia, and worked to ensure historic parental choice provisions were included in the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act. In 2007, John was chosen by his Republican colleagues to serve as the House Republican Leader. In that role, he led the charge and a unified Republican Conference in opposition to job-killing bills like ObamaCare and a cap-and-trade energy tax, as well as the opposition to the wasteful Obama-Pelosi economic stimulus bill of 2009. As Speaker of the House, John Boehner has continued his legacy of reform. The House has enacted landmark changes that increase transparency and give Americans access to data and information that it never had before. Speaker Boehner also oversaw the first meaningful change to entitlement programs in many years as well as significant reductions to the reckless spending levels that became the norm under the previous Democratic majority. Earlier this year, Speaker Boehner's longtime goal of having a Pope address Congress for the first time was realized when Pope Francis addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress. That historic address was a source of inspiration for Congress and the nation, and was a clear crowning achievement for Speaker Boehner. It is clearly evident by his record that Speaker Boehner has been one of the most instrumental and effective members to ever serve in this body. However, I must tell you that in my opinion, he is an even better person than he is a Member of Congress. John Boehner, and his wife Debbie, have become close and dear friends of mine. I will always value their friendship, support, and words of encouragement. Thank you, Speaker John Boehner, for your service as a happy warrior. Godspeed, old pal.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to the incredible life of a dear friend, Elaine Matzner, who passed away on October 3, 2015 at her home in Palm Springs, California, surrounded by family. Elaine was a woman full of life and a pillar of the Palm Springs community; she will be deeply missed. Elaine was born on October 6, 1933 in southern New Jersey to the owners of a fruit farm. Desiring a different life from her parents, she left the farm choosing to further her education by attending Drexel University. It was there that she met her husband Eric. After the couple married, settled down and had spent a few years raising a young family in New Jersey, Elaine and Eric decided to move their family to Southern California. They moved to Hacienda Heights and then later to Palm Springs. She was a woman of many passions, including business, travel, and family. Elaine opened the clothing store La Mariposa in Palm Springs with her daughter Lisa and daughter-in-law Diane. After years raising a family she wanted to find a new outlet and Elaine enjoyed being a small business owner and entrepreneur. La Mariposa imported luxury goods and clothing from all over South and Central America. The store became a fixture to the residents and tourists of the Palm Springs area. Elaine pursued her passion of culture and travel by indulging in numerous family trips over the years that included seven African safaris, 49 states and over 50 countries. She never let age slow her down on any trip. One of her favorite memories was climbing Huayna Picchu, in Peru, the cliff above Machu Picchu in the rain, when she was 65. Elaine took enjoyment from experiencing the new places she visited, their unique histories, and their people. Elaine's biggest passion throughout her life was her family. She had a deep love of her family and involved them in every aspect of her life. Elaine took enormous pride in watching the growth and achievements of her children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren over the years. Elaine is survived by her brother Reed Heritage of Sacramento, California; her four children, Bruce, Lisa, Jill and Evan; her five grandchildren; and three great grandchildren. I extend my heartfelt condolences to the entire Matzner family and friends during this time; although Elaine may be gone--the life, energy, and wit that she brought to the world remains and will never be forgotten.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to an individual whose commitment and contributions to the community of Riverside County, California are exceptional. Riverside County has been fortunate to have dynamic and dedicated community leaders who willingly and unselfishly give their time and talent and make their communities a better place to live and work. Marion Ashley is one of these individuals. On Wednesday, September 16, 2015, my good friend Marion Ashley is celebrating his 80th birthday. Marion Ashley is a dedicated family man. He has been married to his wife Mary for 54 years. Together they have six children, 19 grandchildren and three great-grandchildren. As a lifelong resident of Riverside County, Marion has had an extensive and decorated career of public service working tirelessly to improve the lives of his fellow citizens and local communities. After years working in the private sector in both real estate and accounting, Marion started his journey of public service by serving as a Riverside Planning Commissioner in 1973. He then brought his talents over to the Eastern Municipal Water District when he was elected in 1992. In 2002, he was elected to Riverside County Board of Supervisors where he has been serving for the past 13 years. While overseeing the 5th District in Riverside County, Marion has worked to enact public policy for the 2.3 million people he serves and manages a $4.7 billion budget. Marion has brought his expertise over the years to four very crucial areas of public policy in the state of California including water, jobs, transportation, and forward planning. His hard work and dedication has not been unnoticed by the communities he serves and his peers. Marion is the only County Supervisor that has had the honor of being chosen as the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, the Western Riverside Council of Governments, and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments. In addition to his many years of public service to the Riverside County community, Marion and his family have donated hundreds of acres of land in the hills close to the city of Perris, California to become a permanent nature preserve. I am proud to call Marion a close friend, fellow community member and great American. And today, I add my voice to the many who will be congratulating him on the celebration of his 80th birthday.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to begin with a couple quotes from the President about the agreement: ``There is nothing more important to our security and to the world's stability than preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. ``It does not rely on trust. Compliance will be certified by the International Atomic Energy Agency.'' Mr. Speaker, you would be forgiven if you thought I was quoting President Obama. However, I was quoting President Bill Clinton lauding his nuclear agreement with North Korea in 1994. Additionally he stated, ``This agreement will help to achieve a longstanding and vital American objective: an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula.'' Mr. Speaker, we now know that reality turned out to be very different. Despite assurances from President Clinton, the North Koreans violated the deal, began a clandestine program to enrich uranium and in 2006 conducted its first underground test of a nuclear weapon. Once again we are told by a Democrat President that an agreement will prevent an adversarial country from acquiring a nuclear weapon. We would be fools to believe that they will not violate the Obama agreement just as North Korea violated the Clinton agreement. The stakes here are even higher. Iran is a regime that will not hesitate to use nuclear weapons to achieve its long-stated goals: the destruction of both Israel and America. The Iran Nuclear Deal that was agreed to by President Obama is wholly inadequate and unacceptable. The deal gives up-front, permanent sanctions relief to the Iranian mullahs and allows Iran to have an internationally recognized nuclear program after 15 years that could quickly produce a nuclear weapon. Most laughable are the ``anytime, anywhere'' inspections. In fact, the agreement grants the Iranians 24 days to allow the IAEA access to undeclared nuclear facilities. This gives Iran ample opportunity to cheat and continue its march toward a nuclear weapon. We have also learned that the Iranians will be able to provide their own samples from their military base at Parchin to international inspectors. This is essentially asking the fox to guard the henhouse. I also have great concerns about what happens once sanctions are lifted and billions of dollars are flowing back into Iran. While the UN Security Council resolutions allegedly prevent Iran from shipping arms to terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and to Assad in Syria, nothing prevents them from sending money. In an incredibly dangerous concession, the U.S. even agreed to shorten the length of the arms embargo against Iran. There is no question that this will negatively impact regional stability as well as the U.S. Navy's access to the Persian Gulf. An article in the Washington Post pointed out that the funds available to Iran immediately upon implementation of this deal would equate to approximately 10% of its GDP. That would be equivalent to a $1.7 trillion injection into our economy. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe this agreement will prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. I believe it will do just the opposite. In no way should a country that vows to wipe Israel off the map and chants ``Death to America'' be allowed nuclear capabilities. Today marks a turning point for the future of one of our greatest allies, Israel. If this deal goes through, President Obama and Democrats in Congress will own the consequences of allowing the Iranian regime to become a nuclear power. We can and must have a better deal. A deal that truly allows for anytime/anywhere inspections. A deal that would keep restrictions on Iran's nuclear program for decades. A deal that forces Iran to end its missile development program. A deal that allows Iran truly limited enrichment capability. A deal that releases U.S. hostages in Iran. It is a catastrophic failure that President Obama did not insist on these provisions in the nuclear deal. We should be embarrassed that as the leader of the free world and the most powerful country on earth, this is the best deal President Obama could negotiate. We have been presented with a false choice of accepting this deal or going to war. We should reject this deal and return to work, not to war. We cannot allow the sanctions to be lifted, we must reject approval of the deal and we must have all the information--including side agreements--before the clock can begin on the deal. I urge my colleagues to stand with our ally Israel and with the American people. The consequences of these votes are truly life and death.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to begin with a couple quotes from the President about the agreement: ``There is nothing more important to our security and to the world's stability than preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. ``It does not rely on trust. Compliance will be certified by the International Atomic Energy Agency.'' Mr. Speaker, you would be forgiven if you thought I was quoting President Obama. However, I was quoting President Bill Clinton lauding his nuclear agreement with North Korea in 1994. Additionally he stated, ``This agreement will help to achieve a longstanding and vital American objective: an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula.'' Mr. Speaker, we now know that reality turned out to be very different. Despite assurances from President Clinton, the North Koreans violated the deal, began a clandestine program to enrich uranium and in 2006 conducted its first underground test of a nuclear weapon. Once again we are told by a Democrat President that an agreement will prevent an adversarial country from acquiring a nuclear weapon. We would be fools to believe that they will not violate the Obama agreement just as North Korea violated the Clinton agreement. The stakes here are even higher. Iran is a regime that will not hesitate to use nuclear weapons to achieve its long-stated goals: the destruction of both Israel and America. The Iran Nuclear Deal that was agreed to by President Obama is wholly inadequate and unacceptable. The deal gives up-front, permanent sanctions relief to the Iranian mullahs and allows Iran to have an internationally recognized nuclear program after 15 years that could quickly produce a nuclear weapon. Most laughable are the ``anytime, anywhere'' inspections. In fact, the agreement grants the Iranians 24 days to allow the IAEA access to undeclared nuclear facilities. This gives Iran ample opportunity to cheat and continue its march toward a nuclear weapon. We have also learned that the Iranians will be able to provide their own samples from their military base at Parchin to international inspectors. This is essentially asking the fox to guard the henhouse. I also have great concerns about what happens once sanctions are lifted and billions of dollars are flowing back into Iran. While the UN Security Council resolutions allegedly prevent Iran from shipping arms to terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and to Assad in Syria, nothing prevents them from sending money. In an incredibly dangerous concession, the U.S. even agreed to shorten the length of the arms embargo against Iran. There is no question that this will negatively impact regional stability as well as the U.S. Navy's access to the Persian Gulf. An article in the Washington Post pointed out that the funds available to Iran immediately upon implementation of this deal would equate to approximately 10% of its GDP. That would be equivalent to a $1.7 trillion injection into our economy. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe this agreement will prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. I believe it will do just the opposite. In no way should a country that vows to wipe Israel off the map and chants ``Death to America'' be allowed nuclear capabilities. Today marks a turning point for the future of one of our greatest allies, Israel. If this deal goes through, President Obama and Democrats in Congress will own the consequences of allowing the Iranian regime to become a nuclear power. We can and must have a better deal. A deal that truly allows for anytime/anywhere inspections. A deal that would keep restrictions on Iran's nuclear program for decades. A deal that forces Iran to end its missile development program. A deal that allows Iran truly limited enrichment capability. A deal that releases U.S. hostages in Iran. It is a catastrophic failure that President Obama did not insist on these provisions in the nuclear deal. We should be embarrassed that as the leader of the free world and the most powerful country on earth, this is the best deal President Obama could negotiate. We have been presented with a false choice of accepting this deal or going to war. We should reject this deal and return to work, not to war. We cannot allow the sanctions to be lifted, we must reject approval of the deal and we must have all the information--including side agreements--before the clock can begin on the deal. I urge my colleagues to stand with our ally Israel and with the American people. The consequences of these votes are truly life and death.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill, in support of American families. This week, we have heard powerful and heartbreaking stories from families who have lost a loved one at the hands of an illegal immigrant. Oftentimes, these individuals were able to operate freely because of the sanctuary policies of certain U.S. cities, policies that ignore Federal immigration law. It is time this Congress put the lives and welfare of American citizens and legal residents first. It is time to protect the innocent. This means not another Kate, Josh, Dennis, Danny, Grant, and countless others. It is time to penalize cities that willfully ignore Federal law to the detriment of citizens and legal residents. I encourage my fellow Members to read the testimony from this week's Senate hearing. Read about the lives lost, the brutality of the crimes, the lack of remorse by the perpetrators, and the heartbreak of the families. Today we have a choice: protect fellow Americans or give sanctuary to criminal aliens.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 466, I was unable to vote due to a malfunction of my voting card. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted yes on rollcall 466.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify my vote on H.R. 3009, Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act (ROLL CALL 466). I was on the floor and inserted my voting card to record a ``YES'' vote for H.R. 3009. Unfortunately my vote failed to register. On the recorded final total tally, I am listed as having ``NOT VOTED'' even though I intended and attempted to vote in favor of the bill. Immediately prior to vote on final passage, my vote against the Democratic Motion to Recommit is recorded. I also spoke in favor of H.R. 3009 on the House Floor.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank my colleagues for supporting this amendment. It is a simple amendment. This is a process, as my friend from California has mentioned. After we move this bill forward today, we will have the opportunity, hopefully, to conference with the Senate. Hopefully, they can pass a bill in the Senate, and we can do something good for the State of California. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Wyoming.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, we have a clear choice before us today. We can continue to listen to those who oppose investing in California's water infrastructure and we can believe we can restrict our way out of this problem, or we can recognize that California's situation today is far worse than it should be precisely because of our failure to build adequate water storage and restore more science and commonsense into our water policies that are operating today. I encourage all my colleagues to support the Western Water and American Food Security Act so that we can avoid being back here on the House floor during California's next drought having these very same arguments.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in H.R. 2898, we establish an oversight board for the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund. What my amendment does is simple. It adds an additional conservation seat to the 11-member board, which will provide parity between the environmental and user group interests. The advisory board reflects the interests of agriculture, municipal and industrial users, power contractors, wildlife refuges, in addition to the economic impacts of water operations, so that the Secretary of the Interior will receive recommendations that encompass a broad perspective. The reason for my amendment is also simple, to ensure that a more balanced and effective approach is being taken as the Secretary of the Interior prioritizes spending levels on projects and programs carried out through the restoration fund. Again, in closing, my amendment strikes a better balance between conservation and user groups interests on the 11-member board and will help to ensure that the annual surcharges water and power users contribute will be spent on the most effective methods in habitat restoration and environmental mitigation.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, here we go again, debating solutions to California's water woes, with each side making similar arguments we have heard for years. In fact, more than a decade ago, I was standing in this very spot, in the middle of the debate of the last significant Western water law that Congress has passed. We passed the CALFED law in 2004 and hoped that it would help California establish reliable and affordable water supplies that would help us get through dry spells like we are currently experiencing. So why are we back here again debating many of the same issues? The simplest answer to that question is we allowed the ``don't build anything'' faction in California to block the critical investments we need to make in our State's water infrastructure. The CALFED law authorized feasibility studies for large water storage projects like Temperance Flat, Sites Reservoir, Upper San Joaquin, expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir and raising Shasta Dam. A decade later, our State's population has grown by 3 million new residents, and those projects are still being studied. Think about that for a second. California's population has grown the same amount as the population of the entire State of Iowa, and we haven't made a significant investment in our water infrastructure to accommodate those residents. It is well past time to stop talking about these projects and start building them. Thankfully, the bill before us will move us in that direction by requiring our resource agencies to finally complete those decade-long feasibility studies. Of course, building water storage doesn't help us in the short term, and it also requires excess water that can be diverted. That is why the Western Water and American Food Security Act injects commonsense and science in the operation of our water infrastructure. When it does rain again, we simply can't afford to make the same mistakes we have made in the past and allow millions of gallons to flow out to the Pacific Ocean. Those wasted flows don't benefit the environment, farmers, or California residents, and they must be directed to a higher, better use.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I have one point because asthma has been brought up. When I was chairman of the Environment Committee a number of years ago, we had done significant studies on the increase in asthma. The gentleman is correct on income levels. The lower income folks are suffering from asthma at greater numbers primarily because of indoor pollution. One of the reasons, if we can get into the specifics of why that has occurred, is because we have carpets now and drapes and we don't use linoleum and so forth that we used to have, and so we have the growth of indoor air pollution, and kids don't get outside as much as they used to. So I think we sometimes blame other factors for asthma, and sometimes the other factors are more to blame. But this program, DERA, is a program that works, continues to work; and I know it has in my area, and I know it has in other areas throughout the United States. So, Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I know a lot about the DERA program, obviously, from southern California, probably the most controlled air quality area in the United States, and there are a lot of things in EPA that don't work. There are a lot of things that EPA does to regulate, to create paperwork, and to create headaches for small- and large-business people. We have included a great number of policy provisions to address this EPA regulatory overreach in this bill. We have cut the EPA budget dramatically, as the gentlewoman just referred to. However, I believe this specific amendment targets a program that actually yields great benefits. Many counties across the Nation are currently in nonattainment with EPA's existing standards for the particulate matter and ozone. We are not talking about the standards that are being talked about. We are talking about the standards that were put in place in 2008. In many instances, these counties have been in nonattainment for years, and those communities need help to improve their air quality. The Diesel Emission Reduction Program, or 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 reducing pollution. Another benefit is that these grants are highly leveraged, producing $13 of economic benefit for every Federal grant dollar. Today's newer engines produce 90 percent--let me say that again--90 percent less toxic emissions than the older diesel engines. Remember, I have experience with trucks, and these independent truck drivers, those who have those trucks, get a lot of miles out of those trucks, sometimes well over a million miles off a truck. However, only 30 percent of the trucks and heavy-duty vehicles have transitioned to cleaner technologies, typically because especially these small truck companies just can't afford to get this new technology. We need to follow the science and accelerate the replacement of older engines with these new, clean engines, which, by the way, get better mileage and, at the same time, clean up the air considerably. This is a program that is actually working. We have seen significant--I know the Obama administration doesn't like this program. They don't like programs that actually work. They want to get rid of the programs that work and have money be put into these esoteric climate change studies and so forth and so on, and I can tell the gentleman, from experience, that this had significant impacts in the South Coast Air Quality District where I live in, an area that has probably been impacted with all the problems of air quality more than any other region in the United States of America. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge Members to vote ``no'' on the gentleman's amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I understand that we have taken a lot of shots at the EPA for their overreach, and I am one of them; however, this amendment reaches just a little too far. We may not always agree on where it is appropriate to draw the line on environmental laws and regulations. Some think standards are too stringent; others will say they are not tough enough. That is a fair policy debate, and we have it. Back in 1968 when the Environmental Protection Agency was created, we had rivers that would light on fire. We had air that was so thick, back when I played football, you couldn't see the other goalposts on the other end of the football field. So we have made a lot of gains. At the same time, as it has been discussed, I think the EPA has gone way too far. We get to the point where we start regulating smaller and smaller numbers and making it very difficult; for instance, when we start talking about 70 parts per billion versus 60 parts per billion, we have gone a long ways. However, we do know that no matter where the line is ultimately drawn, there are individuals out there that are willingly and knowingly trying to find ways around the law. As such, EPA needs to have the ability to look into criminal activity, whether it is illegal dumping of waste, which unfortunately happens; negligent dumping of toxics or oil, which unfortunately happens; and the illegal transportation or importation of products from other countries by those who would choose to ignore U.S. law. We can debate the laws and what is appropriate, but we can't give criminals a free pass to ignore the law or the laws that are on the books. Again, I'm sorry. I must oppose the amendment and strongly urge my colleagues to do the same. I reserve the balance of my time.