Ken Calvert

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. I understand the BLM needed to update its regulation related to fracking on Federal and Indian lands. BLM regulations are 25, 30 years old. However, the States have been doing the same thing over the last number of years. Unfortunately, BLM's rule is duplicative of existing State regulation. It forces companies to drill into a double compliance scheme. It also costs them more time, and it significantly lengthens the time in which it takes time to get to a permit. None of this is necessary, which is why we adopted this provision during the committee's markup of this bill. I certainly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. CALVERT. While I commend my colleague for her consistent work to protect taxpayer dollars, this is not an approach I can support. While the President may have proposed a budget that exceeds this bill, the increases were paid for with proposals and gimmicks that would never be enacted. This bill makes tough choices within an allocation that adheres to current law. While difficult trade-offs had to be made, the bill in its current form balances our needs. These trade-offs were carefully weighed for their respective impacts and are responsible. We prioritize funding for fire suppression, PILT, and meeting our moral obligations in Indian Country, yet the gentlewoman's amendment proposes an across-the-board cut on every one of those programs. This amendment makes no distinction between where we need to be spending to invest in energy independence and where we need to limit spending to meet our deficit reduction goals. And, I may point out, the spending problem is not within these discretionary appropriation bills, which we are debating at the present time. It exists primarily in entitlement spending. So I hope we can spend as much energy on the entitlement side of the budget as we are on the discretionary side of the budget. If so, we would fix our budget problems. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, the last point. I appreciate the gentlewoman's concern about the deficit that we have. When I came here 24 years ago, 40 percent of our expenditures were on the entitlement side of the budget. Today it is over 60 percent, over 60 percent. So we need to attack that side of the budget line. If we placed as much energy on entitlement spending as we have on discretionary, not only would the budget be balanced, but we would be moving toward paying off our national debt. With that, I reluctantly oppose the gentlewoman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I want the gentleman from Georgia to know that I support his amendment and would urge its adoption.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, earlier, we debated whether or not to continue a bipartisan reporting requirement in the bill on climate change expenditures. My colleague on the other side of the aisle wanted to remove the requirements, which would have reduced transparency. Now he 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 funds are spent on these programs or not. Regardless, this amendment is simply unnecessary. The President did not consult Congress on these executive orders, so, if anything, we should defund the 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.'' With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. CALVERT

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

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. Chairman, I would just say that, again, I am in reluctant opposition to this amendment. This should be dealt with in the authorizing committees. I yield back the balance of my time.

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. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would urge adoption of the gentleman's amendment.

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

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 reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I agree with the gentleman and with The New York Times that this is why the underlying bill reduces funding for certain offices within EPA that were responsible for these questionable actions. Therefore, this language is complementary to the approach the committee has already taken in the bill, and I urge an ``aye'' vote on the amendment.

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

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

Mr. CALVERT. The committee still has concerns about the costs, technology requirements, and compliance periods in the final rule. It is not clear why EPA divided some categories into subcategories and provided different deadlines for similar products. The EPA clearly chose winners and losers. For the losers, the timetables remain unworkable. Manufacturers need time to implement engineering and technology changes and address new risk and safety challenges. Historic experience with the Montreal Protocol indicates that manufacturers need approximately 6-plus years to successfully transition between new materials. This new rule will particularly be hard on small businesses. The large businesses that the gentleman mentioned have the resources and the technologies available to them to comply quicker. These smaller businesses will find it very difficult to comply with DOE's energy conservation standards. EPA's proposal is not being driven by a statutory mandate, so the committee believes additional time is warranted. The EPA left critical decisions regarding energy, efficiency, and system performance up to the manufacturers; and they need time to get this right. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment and yielding me time. I appreciate the concerns that he brings to us today. It is troubling that the Bureau of Land Management has proposed land use plans that appear to contradict its multiple-use mandate. So with that, I would happily accept his amendment.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for this amendment. I think it is a good amendment. I certainly understand his concern. I would urge my colleagues to support the gentleman's 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.