Ken Calvert

Mr. CALVERT

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

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman. Again, Mr. Chairman, I think this is a program that has worked, continues to work, and has had significant improvement in my area in California and, I know, throughout the United States, where we have a program that actually does work. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), my ranking member, who has a couple of comments.

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 to include extraneous material on H.R. 2822.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part: ``An appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.'' Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to appropriate funds. The amendment, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

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 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.

Mr. CALVERT

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

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, as in the case of a number of offshore- related amendments that we will deal with today, the Interior Appropriations bill is not the appropriate venue, though I do understand it has been used in the past. I understand this amendment dovetails with the current congressional moratorium, and the Department of the Interior has no intention of acting in a manner that is contrary to congressional intent. The Department is focused on the next 5-year oil and gas leasing plan, which is limited to 2017-2022, so many departmental activities in fiscal year 2016 are already limited in scope through 2022. If my colleagues wish to see the moratorium extended beyond 2022, then they should work with the appropriate authorizing committees. With that, I would oppose the amendment, and urge a ``no'' vote. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I am more than happy to work with my good friend from Minnesota as we move this process forward. As you know, we talked about this in the budget process with the National Park Service earlier in the year. We, obviously, don't want to discourage people from drinking water. We want them to stay hydrated. There are also people who work in the bottled water industry, and I think it is a noble industry. We want to encourage people to drink more water. It is not just about bottled water. It is about jobs and about the people who bottle that water. I will work together with the gentlewoman from Minnesota, and we will not deny people water in our national parks. I support this amendment.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I am sympathetic to the gentleman's concerns, particularly because my home State of California probably has more than its fair share of endangered species problem. The Endangered Species Act hinges upon the principle that, if a species is listed, that it will be recovered and management will return to the States. This push by the States is the reality we see playing out. Bats, wolves, greater sage-grouse, delta smelt, the list goes on and on and on. It should come as no surprise, then, to see the States pushing back through their elected Representatives in the legislative branch in an effort to bring the Endangered Species Act back into balance. I would support this amendment.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, this administration has already developed the most restrictive policies for the use of seismic airguns for offshore exploration to date. We do not need to place a moratorium on the use. Further, the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Planning Area is more than 125 miles off the Florida coast, and the South Atlantic Planning Area also affects Georgia and South Carolina. So the amendment affects many other States other than his own. Also, the Department of the Interior has already classified the Straits of Florida as a low resource potential or low support for potential new listing. As such, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CALVERT. I would be happy to work with the gentleman in the future to see if there is a methodology where we can move your idea forward and see if we can't get the Federal Government and States to cooperate to their mutual, I think, benefit on this issue.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment requires a new determination. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment. This amendment is consistent with policy agreed to last year in the conference on a bipartisan basis. Fishing is a national pastime, to which the national fish hatchery plays an important role. Therefore, I support the gentlewoman's amendment, and I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I urge the adoption of the gentleman's amendment. It is a good amendment.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman. I certainly rise in support of this amendment. Having chaired that subcommittee for 6 years and knowing the good work of that subcommittee, I think the intent of the language aligns with the two authorizing bills passed by the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology earlier this year. I certainly voted for them both times. I think it is a good amendment, so I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.

Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, climate change is winning the amendment contest tonight. We have had a number of amendments on that subject. Earlier we debated whether or not to continue a bipartisan reporting requirement in the bill on climate change expenditures. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle wanted to remove that requirement, which would have reduced transparency. Now my friend wants to ensure that funds are being expended on climate and efficiency executive orders issued by the President. So I am left to wonder whether my colleagues would prefer to know if the funds are spent on these programs or not. Regardless, this amendment is certainly unnecessary. The President did not consult Congress on these executive orders. If anything, we should defund these programs until Congress can have an appropriate policy debate. I see no reason to include this language, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, the President did make his unilateral determination in an executive order. We have an opportunity to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I urge a ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. I am not going to oppose the amendment. I certainly appreciate what the gentleman is trying to accomplish and generally agree that this administration has placed way too many restrictions on drilling, both onshore and offshore. These restrictions have delayed the permitting process and slowed economic growth in your State and many other States around the Union. Various groups have used that to their advantage. I agree that more certainty is needed in the leasing and permitting process. What I am afraid of is this might lead to a precedent for preempting the Department of the Interior's decisionmaking under any President, and may lead to other amendments and kind of opening Pandora's box, and Members doing specific amendments that are off their particular States. Saying that, as we move this process forward, I am not going to oppose the amendment, but I just have some concerns we can talk about as we move this process along. We both want the same outcome. I just want to make sure that we make sure this works in an orderly fashion.