Ken Calvert

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?

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, 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. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CALVERT

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

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

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. Madam Chair, I would encourage Members who have striking amendments to come to the floor immediately. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. CALVERT. The language now in this amendment is consistent with the National Park Service policy, and I would support this language as you presently have it drafted. I would urge its adoption. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

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. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Jenkins included the language in the full committee bill that, I think, came to a reasonable compromise. As the gentleman is aware, many communities cannot reach the old standard, the 2008 standard, that is now the law, and so this just gives the communities throughout the country that cannot get to attainment additional time to develop the technologies before we go to a new standard. I would remind the gentleman that it was just last April that we came to a determination on the 2008 standard, and the administration already is talking about a new standard that most of the Nation cannot reach in the short term. So this gives a brief, little bit of time to allow these communities to improve their technologies and to be able to meet a new standard down the road. So I would oppose the gentleman's amendment and support the underlying bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).

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

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, just in closing, I would rise in opposition to this amendment. I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I probably live in the most regulated air quality area in the United States, southern California. In southern California, our population continues to grow; yet we have been able to make significant air quality improvements within the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The committee set a level at 85 percent of the communities so that the marginal nonattainment communities could have the opportunity to achieve compliance with the 2008 standards before further updates are considered. This amendment would prevent EPA from lowering the ozone standard below the 2008 levels. This amendment would prevent further updates to the ozone standard for an indefinite and undetermined timeframe, and that is certainly not the committee's intent. We need to make progress in clean air in areas that folks want to see cleaner air, but at the same time making sure that technology is there in order to do that. This was, I think, compromise language that the underlying bill has that works to move us forward, but at the same time not stopping us from obtaining cleaner air in the future. I am in opposition to this amendment. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I certainly would urge the adoption of the gentleman's amendment, and I support his amendment.

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I have long been concerned with how EPA conducts its cost-benefit analysis to justify its rulemaking. This is something that the committee has discussed with EPA on a number of occasions, and the Supreme Court recently ruled that EPA's approach to examining costs and their regulation was flawed. The administration's revised estimates for the social cost of carbon help justify on paper larger benefits from reducing carbon emissions in any proposed rule. If the administration can inflate the price tag so that the benefits always exceed the costs, the administration can goldplate requirement regulations from any department or any agency. Section 437 says that the administration should convene a working group to revise the estimates in a more transparent manner and to make that information available to the public. I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague's thoughtful comments regarding crisis levels of poaching and wildlife trafficking and the need to do something about it. This is a deadly serious matter with national security implications. That is why this bill has increased funding by $15 million since fiscal year 2013 in order to fight wildlife poachers and traffickers. Without question, Republicans do not want to see elephants go extinct; but when the Fish and Wildlife Service made the unilateral determination to ban the trade and transport of products containing ivory that have been in the United States legally for years, we heard from orchestra musicians, art museums, wildlife conservation organizations, collectors of fine antiques from chess pieces to pool cues to firearms, and nearly everyone in every organization in between. They are united in support for elephants, but they are also united in their opposition to new Federal restrictions on products that contain ivory legally obtained. The reality is family heirlooms and rare musical instruments didn't cause the problem, and the Fish and Wildlife Service should be acknowledging as much. This bill keeps the status quo, allowing for continued legal trade and transport so that collectors, musicians, and others can get on with their lives until the Fish and Wildlife Service writes a rule that reflects the legitimate concerns of law-abiding U.S. citizens. The administration is rumored to be just days away from publishing a revised rule to address most of these concerns. If that is the case and if the revised rule solves the problem, then there will be no need for this provision in the final conference report later in the year. In any case, I remain fully committed to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find a reasonable solution moving forward. In the meantime, I must oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order.