Ken Calvert: “I understand, and I have taken a lot of criticism over the last few years for cutting EPA's budget by 27 percent over…”

“I understand, and I have taken a lot of criticism over the last few years for cutting EPA's budget by 27 percent over the last number of years. However, I believe this amendment is just going too far. We have a new administration. We have a new Administrator. I think there is a new day over at EPA. None of us want to see our rivers polluted, toxic waste either on the ground or in the air, and I think this administration will administer the law properly. We may not always agree on where it is appropriate to draw the line on environmental laws and regulations. Some think some standards are too stringent, some think they are not tough enough, and that is a fair policy debate to have. However, we know that no matter where the line is ultimately drawn, there are individuals out there who are willingly and knowingly trying to find ways around those laws. As such, EPA needs the ability to look into criminal activity, whether it is illegal dumping of waste, negligent dumping of toxics or oil, or the illegal importation of products from other countries by those who would choose to ignore United States law. So we can debate the law and what is appropriate, but we can't give criminals a free pass or ignore the laws that are on the books. Mr. Chair, I must oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same, and I encourage a ``no'' vote. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.”