Congressional Record, Volume 162 Issue 113 (Wednesday, July 13, 2016)

[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 113 (Wednesday, July 13, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H4876-H4882]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2017

General Leave

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 include extraneous material for the further consideration of H.R.
5538, and that I may include tabular material on the same.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 820 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 5538.
Will the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mooney) kindly take the
chair.

{time} 1824

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 5538) making appropriations for the Department of the
Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2017, and for other purposes, with Mr. Mooney of West
Virginia (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,
amendment No. 73 printed in House Report 114-683, offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), had been disposed of.

Amendment No. 76 Offered by Mr. Palmer

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 76
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Environmental Protection Agency to carry out
the powers granted under section 3063 of title 18, United
States Code.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Palmer) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to commend my colleague, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), for his and his colleagues on
Appropriations' work on this bill.
Mr. Chairman, the Environmental Protection Agency spends as much as
$50 million per year to employ nearly 200 armed agents at an average
cost of $216,000 per year per agent. In total, over the period from
fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2015, the EPA spent an estimated $715
million for its criminal enforcement program.
These 200 agents are equipped with guns and ammunition up to 30
millimeter in caliber, camouflage and other deceptive equipment, night
vision, unmanned aircraft, and other military-style equipment.
A 2015 report noted that the EPA spent $24,700 on ammunition between
75 millimeter and 125 millimeter and $23,000 on ammunition over 125
millimeter. If this is true, what possible use could the EPA have for
purchasing rounds of that size?
The EPA is just one of more than 67 Federal agencies that employ
armed personnel, many of whom most Americans would never associate with
law enforcement. These include the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the Federal Reserve Board, and the National Institutes
of Health, among others.
Federal agencies should be able to clearly demonstrate their need for
armed personnel and, absent such a demonstration, should rely on local
law enforcement when there is a need for armed protection.
My amendment would prohibit funding for EPA's armed agents and begin
to address the troubling trend of the militarization in our Federal
agencies. I urge my colleagues to support it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's concerns
about sometimes the perception of overreach, and sometimes the real
perception of overreach, by agencies of the United States Government.
I have taken a lot of shots at the Environmental Protection Agency,
and probably will continue to do so. However, this amendment reaches
too far.
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, and others will say they are not tough enough. That is a
fair policy debate to have, and that is what we are doing tonight.
However, we know, 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

[[Page H4877]]

dumping of toxics or oil, and the illegal 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 laws that are on the books.
Saying that, I would like to continue to work with the gentleman,
recognizing that whether or not these agencies are properly using the
police powers that they have and the type of organizations that they
have to enforce the law, they must enforce the law and they must be
able to protect themselves in sometimes very difficult situations.
I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1830

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would not hinder the EPA's
ability to enforce the laws on the books. This amendment only limits
their ability to employ armed personnel. The EPA will still be able to
investigate and prosecute environmental crimes. They will simply have
to rely on local law enforcement--or on Federal law enforcement when
Federal law enforcement would be appropriate--and when there is a need
for armed protection. They could, again, rely on local law enforcement
or on Federal law enforcement when the need applies.
If the EPA believes that it needs armed protection, we should have a
full disclosure of all of the EPA's criminal enforcement assets and a
public debate about the need for the arms and equipment being used by
the EPA. When we are talking about 75-millimeter ammunition, we are
basically talking about an anti-tank round. When we are talking about
125-millimeter, we are talking about a tank round. They have amphibious
assault vehicles, and they have other equipment that really makes them
look like a military operation. It is also an enormous amount of money
that has been invested here.
I would be happy--and I really appreciate the gentleman's desire--to
have a discussion about this, and I look forward to having that
discussion. I agree that we want to make sure that the people who work
for our Federal agencies are protected, especially when they are
involved in investigations in an enforcement capacity. We don't want
any one of them to leave his home in the morning to go to work and be
injured or worse and not be able to return home that evening. But we do
need to have a serious discussion about how much we are spending, and
the militarization of the Federal agencies should be of concern to all
of us.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I would share my concern about the growth
of the utilization of these types of weapons within various agencies,
not just within the EPA, and whether or not the U.S. Marshals office,
which was used in the past, shouldn't be brought back to some degree,
especially the SWAT teams and so forth, which are highly trained in
sometimes very delicate situations.
Training, of course, as we know, is extremely important, and the
folks who work in various agencies may not get the type of training
they need in sometimes very difficult situations. I think we need to
look at it, but these agents who are working for the Environmental
Protection Agency sometimes need to protect themselves. We can debate
whether or not they need the type of ammunition and the types of guns
that the gentleman is talking about.
I think that, right now, this amendment goes too far. Again, I will
work with the gentleman down the road because I do have some concerns
about that. It is not just the EPA. We have got a number of agencies
that seem to be arming themselves, which I have some concerns about.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALMER. I thank the gentleman for expressing his concerns and for
his willingness to work with us on this.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that weapons have
proliferated among the Federal agencies. As I said, there are 67
agencies. We are spending an enormous amount of money on this, and we
are not doing a particularly good job of keeping up with the weapons'
inventory. We have had situations in which weapons have been lost or
stolen--in one case, with the tragic result of the murder of Kate
Steinle, in which the weapon had been stolen from the automobile of a
ranger from the Bureau of Land Management.
I just think we have to take a long, hard look at the real need for
arming Federal agencies. Some of them make absolutely no sense, like
with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and
particularly with the EPA. The EPA is one of the most feared agencies
in the Federal Government. I put them right up there next to the IRS.
To think that you have got armed agents with the kind of equipment and
weapons that they have is a serious, serious issue that my amendment
addresses. It has already, I think, initiated a much-needed debate on
this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, reluctantly, I oppose this amendment. I
would be happy to work with the gentleman in the future to come to some
resolution of this problem. I do agree that it is a concern that we
should all work together on, on both sides, because the so-called
militarization of some of these agencies is concerning, but individuals
within these agencies should be able to protect themselves in
situations that may arise from time to time. I would urge opposition of
the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 77 Offered by Mrs. Lummis

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 77
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chair, on behalf of the gentleman from New Mexico
(Mr. Pearce), I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to treat the New Mexico Meadow Jumping Mouse as an
endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentlewoman
from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wyoming.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce)
was called away. I am standing in for him and want to join the previous
amendment offerer in thanking the Appropriations Committee's
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, as well as
the staff of that committee, for their hard work on this piece of
legislation.
This amendment would affect the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. As a
result of the habitat designations, the U.S. Forest Service has begun
to construct electric fences around the New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse's habitat, which is located around floodplains and streambeds in
New Mexico.
The problem is a number of these critical habitat designations
coincide with ranching allotments in New Mexico where ranchers hold
what we call territorial water rights. Those are water rights that
existed and belonged to these ranchers before New Mexico was even a
State. These longstanding water rights provide access that is essential
to these ranches. This amendment is needed because the Fish and
Wildlife Service and Forest Service are not effectively working with
ranchers to maintain their operations.
There is also an issue about the science surrounding this mouse. The
mouse has never been seen in a number of the critical habitat areas,
and the few mouse sightings on record were made nearly a decade ago.
The agencies themselves have admitted that the science used to list the
species and designate the critical habitat is seriously

[[Page H4878]]

limited. Despite that science gap, farmers and ranchers are being
denied their private property rights--their territorial water rights--
and are being driven from their allotments all for a mouse that may not
even exist in these areas.
Voting for this amendment will send a clear message to the Fish and
Wildlife Service that species listings that are not backed by sound
science will not stand. We cannot allow unsubstantiated science to
destroy the lives of American citizens and the history and heritage of
the ranching community and the culture of the ranching community that
even predates New Mexico's admission into the Union.
For this reason, I ask that my colleagues support the Pearce
amendment to delist this species until legitimate and up-to-date
science is available.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Palmer). The gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms.
McCollum) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, this would prohibit the Fish and Wildlife
Service from implementing or enforcing the Endangered Species listing
of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse under the Endangered Species
Act, and it would restrict the Service from offering any critical
protections to preserve the species.
I heard clearly what my good friend said, and having a grandfather
who is a rancher in Montana, I hear what she is saying. However, once a
species is listed under the Endangered Species Act, the role of Fish
and Wildlife Service is primarily permissive--it is permissive--in
helping parties to comply with the act as they carry out their
activities.
The majority of the habitat for the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse
is on Federal land, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working
with the Forest Service to develop a conservation measure that will
protect the mouse while, clearly, allowing livestock raising on Forest
Service lands and ensuring adequate water for the cattle, which they
should do.
Since the Endangered Species listing, members of the livestock
community have voiced concerns about the impacts to people who recreate
and make their livelihoods on Forest Service lands which result from
addressing the needs of the meadow jumping mouse. The Fish and Wildlife
Service listened clearly to these concerns, and they have established
three working groups to address these concerns. They have come up with
creative solutions, like establishing the cattle lanes, which I am sure
the gentlewoman was referring to, to make sure the cattle can maintain
access to the water while protecting the vegetation that is necessary
for the survival of the meadow jumping mouse.
Under this amendment, the Service would not be able to continue to
recover the species, though all of the Endangered Species Act
prohibitions would still apply. The Service would not be able to work
collaboratively with these stakeholders to provide ESA compliance. The
Service has a statutory requirement to implement the Endangered Species
Act. Defunding the agency's ability to fulfill this legal requirement
makes everyone more vulnerable to losses, which is an unnecessary cause
for the American taxpayer. Additionally, this amendment limits the
Service from undertaking required status reviews of the subspecies or
from initiating any rulemaking to down list or to delist a species as
is appropriate.
I believe that the Fish and Wildlife Service, with the working
groups, can come up with a creative solution. We should also allow Fish
and Wildlife to be able to down list or to delist the species. If what
the gentlewoman is reporting is true, her amendment would not give them
the ability to do that. I oppose this amendment, and I urge my
colleagues to oppose it as well.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, this is a water rights issue in addition
to an Endangered Species Act issue. This is an instance in which
private water rights are being abrogated for the sake of a mouse that
we don't even know exists in this area and the science about which
makes it so you can't tell one subspecies from the other of this meadow
jumping mouse unless you actually kill the mouse and look at its skull.
Now, when it is that extreme in figuring out whether a mouse is
endangered or not--whether it is a Preble's meadow jumping mouse or a
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse or some other subspecies--we have got a
problem with the science.
To block people from territorial water rights--using electric fences
in a way that is based on science that is this obscure--doesn't sound,
to me, like an effective means by which to work with the ranchers, the
culture, and the livelihoods of the people involved. Therefore, once
again, I urge support of the Pearce amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).
The amendment was agreed to.

{time} 1845

Amendment No. 78 Offered by Mr. Gosar

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 78
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Pearce), I offer amendment No. 78.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to treat the Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) as an
endangered species or threatened species under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) or to implement
a recovery plan for such species that applies in any area
outside the historic range of such species.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of Mr. Pearce to
offer amendment No. 78 to H.R. 5538. The Pearce-Gosar amendment allows
for the responsible State management of the Mexican wolf in Arizona and
New Mexico. It will also prevent the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service from expanding the population for this species outside of its
historic range.
One of the main issues for the wolf recovery is an extremely outdated
recovery plan being utilized by the Service. The Mexican wolf was first
listed as an endangered species in 1976. In 1982, Mexico and the United
States signed the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan, which the Service is
still currently utilizing today. As a result, this plan is
significantly outdated and is not based on the best available science.
Without an updated plan that includes recovery criteria, the Mexican
wolf will remain on the endangered species list in perpetuity. The
Service has recently expressed interest in redrafting its recovery
plan. However, the agency has done this in the past but has failed to
make any updates and has instead caved to radical environmental groups.
Another major issue arose early last year when the Service expanded
the recovery zone for the wolf by four times its previous size without
first securing the funding to manage the new acreage. The results have
been disastrous for private citizens who face longer wait times for
wolf disturbances, as well as the species, whose numbers have also
declined under the failed management plan of the Fish and Wildlife
Service.
In December 2015, the Service confirmed that the agency was again
considering introducing the species into areas outside its historic
range. This expansion effort is extremely misguided, as 90 percent of
the Mexican wolf's historic range is in Mexico.
The four Governors from the States of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico,
and Utah sent a bipartisan letter to Department of the Interior
Secretary Sally Jewell expressing serious concern in opposition to this
approach.
On July 8, 2015, the Arizona attorney general and the Arizona Game
and Fish

[[Page H4879]]

Department filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of the Department of
the Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ``for failing their
statutory duty to develop an updated recovery plan to guide the Mexican
wolf recovery.''
In April of 2016, the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish also
filed a lawsuit against the Service, claiming that the agency was
ignoring the ``laws and regulations of New Mexico'' by releasing wolves
without State permits.
Last month, a Federal judge sided with the New Mexico State
government and granted the State a temporary injunction preventing the
Service from releasing any more Mexican wolves into the wild.
Adding to this debacle, this week the Department of the Interior's
Office of Inspector General released a scathing report of the Mexican
Gray Wolf Recovery Program, which revealed some serious structural
issues with the program, including subversive actions taken by the Fish
and Wildlife Service staff overseeing the program.
In lieu of the current circumstances, I urge my colleagues to vote
for this amendment to allow the respective States to protect and manage
the species, not the Washington bureaucrats with a track record of
failure.
The amendment is supported by the American Farm Bureau Federation;
Americans for Limited Government; the Public Lands Council; the
National Cattlemen's Beef Association; Arizona Cattle Feeders
Association; Arizona Farm Bureau Federation; Arizona Liberty; Dona Ana
Soil and Water Conservation District; Gila County Cattle Growers
Association; Idaho Recreation Council; New Mexico Cattle Growers'
Association; New Mexico Wool Growers, Incorporated; New Mexico Federal
Lands Council Wildlife biologist Mary Darling; taxpayers John Fowler,
James Goughnour, Gary Kiehne, Therese Griffin Hicks, Becky Nutt, Jim
and Sue Chilton; and countless other individuals and organizations.
I thank the chairman and ranking member for their time and for their
good work on this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I understand and I hear clearly what the
gentleman was saying that the plan needs to be updated, refreshed, and
people need to be involved in it. I would be happy to work with the
gentleman to make sure that the Fish and Wildlife Service lives up to
its responsibilities in doing that, but I strongly oppose this
amendment.
The Mexican wolf is the most endangered subspecies of wolf in the
world. The population is now estimated at approximately 97 wolves in
the wild. Biologists believe that, when the Mexican wolf population
returns to a healthy number, that it will restore balance to the
Southwest ecosystem by keeping deer, elk, and other prey populations
strong by preventing overpopulation and overgrazing of habitat.
The reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone, for example,
demonstrates how top predators like wolves maintain the balance of
nature. Elk in Yellowstone are now more wary and avoid standing in the
open near streams. Willows and aspens have come back and, with them,
birds and beavers. With the beavers came the ponds and more fish. The
presence of wolves has also led to fewer coyotes, which boosted the
population of pronghorn, antelope, and fox.
I have been in Yellowstone, and I have been out there and have seen
the stream recovery and all of these things that I just spoken of. I
have actually seen this recovery happen. In the Southwest, scientists
expect similar benefits to wildlife, sportsmen, and to everyone who
enjoys the outdoors.
This amendment would prohibit the Service from managing wolves in the
wild, including the capture and removal of problem wolves and assisting
livestock producers to manage wolf-livestock conflicts, such as using
radio collars and hazardous techniques.
So I oppose the gentleman's amendment because it would undermine the
Service's ability to work collaboratively with local communities and
ranchers. And I hear you clearly say that they need to do a better job
with that, and I agree that we need to do the best job we can.
We need to be able to make sure that the ESA compliance to protect
private citizens from taking violations under section 9 of the ESA, a
third party could sue them. So, by your amendment, you expose citizens
from take violations under section 9 of the ESA, and the third party
then, in fact, could be sued.
It would prohibit any efforts to prevent conflicts with wolves or
update the recovery plan, as I agree, probably needs to be updated.
So it is clear, as you can see, I think we should be supporting the
Fish and Wildlife Service in its efforts to manage this imperiled
species and not block the agency from doing its job.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have
remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inform the gentlewoman that
I am from Wyoming. I actually had to endure and watch what the Fish and
Wildlife Service actually erroneously did with introducing the
nonnative wolves into the Yellowstone Park area. They made superpacks
of wolves and actually ended up costing 60 percent of the Shiras moose
herd. So I am very, very aware of this.
This amendment will not force the wolf into extinction. They are
going extinct because of the Fish and Wildlife Service. States have
proven better at species conservation and management than the bloated
bureaucracy, and the only way they respond is through frivolous
lawsuits.
Again, 90 percent of the Mexican wolf's historic range is in Mexico.
Arizona and New Mexico both want the ability to manage this species in
the United States. The Mexican wolf has lingered on the Endangered
Species Act for nearly 40 years, and it will go extinct at the rate
that the Fish and Wildlife Service is doing. It is time to do something
right and return it back to the States.
Again, I urge support of this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, once again, I would just like to point
out that the Mexican wolf is the most endangered subspecies of all
wolves in the world. The population is now estimated at approximately
97 wolves in the wild. So I believe we should be supporting the Fish
and Wildlife Service in its efforts to manage this imperiled species,
not blocking the agency from doing its job.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 79 Offered by Mr. Perry

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 79
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to develop, administer, purchase, acquire, or operate
an unmanned aircraft system owned by the Department of
Interior or the Environmental Protection Agency to perform
surveying, mapping, or collecting remote sensing data.

[[Page H4880]]

in-house agency assets and, specifically, their agency owned and
operated UAS for land surveying, mapping, imaging, and other such
remote sensing activities.
Mr. Chairman, you may have heard that last month the Federal Aviation
Administration, the FAA, announced that the new small UAS unmanned
aerial system--UAS rule, part 107, including all pilot and operating
rules--will be effective on August 29 of this year. That is important
because that will allow commercial activity in the UAS arena, not just
government activity.
Now, perhaps no new technology in history will revolutionize the
aerial surveying and mapping community like unmanned aerial systems.
The benefits of commercial and private UAS are incalculable. Technology
has moved forward rapidly, and what used to be considered toys are
quickly becoming powerful commercial tools that provide enormous
benefits in terms of safety and efficiency.
When UAS are performing missions connected to surveying and mapping
areas for stewardship decisions and public policy, society is only just
beginning to realize the full potential of the unmanned aerial system.
Indeed, the demand for UAS for business purposes has been far reaching
and continues to grow. UAS technology is already bringing substantial
benefits to people's daily lives.
The timely acquisition of geospatial data is critical to assessment,
realtime decisionmaking, and mitigation during and immediately
following both natural and manmade disasters, including earthquakes,
tornadoes, blizzards, floods, volcanic eruptions, wildfires,
hurricanes, infrastructure disasters, including collapsed buildings,
bridges, and dams, ruptured pipelines, various types of terrorists
incidents, and in emergency blue tarp surveys to support postdisaster
response.
There is a concern that agencies like the USGS and the Bureau of Land
Management are acquiring unmanned aerial systems and regularly
utilizing them on projects that can be accomplished by the private
sector, directly competing with the private sector. The result is a
loss of business for the private sector under contract to other Federal
mapping agencies.
The government is getting a leg up on the private sector by obtaining
certificates of authorization, or COAs, which are required to fly the
UAS and performing services with UAS that are otherwise commercial in
nature. Currently, there is no effective enforcement and oversight to
prevent government abuse of such authority for commercial purposes.
The fact that government agencies can operate a UAS while the private
sector cannot as freely or timely gain airspace access has created an
uneven playing field. Allowing the Department of the Interior to use
UAS in direct competition with the private sector is not only poor
stewardship of taxpayer money, but it is also an inefficient use of
resources. It also results in the government duplicating and directly
competing with private enterprise, which is something that we don't
seek to do.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, while I agree there are many other
implications in this amendment, I am going to speak about how this
would affect the ability to fight wildland fires.
So far this year, wildland fires have burned more than 2.3 million
acres. Certainly, in my State, in California, we unfortunately have
some significant fires going on right now. Right now, throughout the
United States, we have 16 active large fires.
Now, we can get in a policy discussion of whether or not we should be
contracting out utilization of this new technology to the private
sector. I tend to agree with you. I think it is a better use of
taxpayer's money overall to contract this out. This is more of an
authorizing decision than it is an appropriating decision. I would hope
that the authorizers would meet and make the policy on how we should do
this.
Right now, as we sit here today, unmanned aircraft systems are being
used by fire managers and fire crews, and we need to make sure that we
ensure the safety of these fire crews and protect the communities to
the best of their ability.
You are right that this technology has moved very rapidly. This is a
way that they use to find the hotspots to be able to use communications
with aerial vehicles to drop the water or chemical on the fire more
effectively and more efficiently. We may be able to do this with
private contractors, but right now we don't know who is the best
trained and so forth.
Again, we are the appropriating committee. We pay the bills; and I
think because of this technology, the authorizing committees need to
set policy on this and start working on doing this and start doing that
through their regular order.
So right now, I would oppose this amendment. Our fire crews right now
need this equipment, and I wouldn't take that away from them.
I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1900

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, last year I rose in opposition to this
amendment because it failed to account for the Department's need to
utilize unmanned systems in times of emergency. Let me give you a
couple of examples. We had a conversation. I was hoping that when I saw
the amendment this year, you might have made some accommodations for
this.
Use of remote sensing via unmanned aircraft makes sense. It allows
for rapid collection of data and allows for the Department to get a
closer look at natural disasters. The Department and the USGS are using
unmanned aircraft to monitor the spread of wildfires, as the chairman
pointed out, monitor river bank erosion, detect and locate coal seam
fires, conduct waterfowl surveys, and inspect abandoned mines.
I think the chairman said it best, we need to have the authorizing
committee look at this because, I think the gentleman would agree,
there are times when good things can be done; but this amendment,
unfortunately, doesn't allow that to happen.
I thank Chairman Calvert for yielding me the time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I find a lot in common with the chairman and
the gentlewoman from Minnesota. Certainly in times of emergency we
would want to use the assets that are available to us immediately. The
amendment says it prohibits the Agency to perform surveying, mapping,
or collecting remote sensing data. None of those are, generally
speaking, an emergency situation; so I find some agreement, but this is
what the amendment says.
I just want to let everybody know that this is a $73 billion market,
and while we wait around in the United States and wait on the FAA to
promulgate rules beyond the line of sight, et cetera, the market moves
further and further away from the United States. It drives more than $1
trillion in economic activity. More than 500,000 American jobs are
related to the collection, storage, and dissemination of imagery and
geospatial data. Another 5.3 million workers utilize such data. As much
as 90 percent of the government information has a geospatial
information component. Up to 80 percent of the information managed by
business is connected to a specific location, and it is identified by
the Department of Labor as one of just 14 high-gross sectors of the
United States workforce.
I find it problematic that we are giving our government a leg up when
the private sector is the one that pays for the government, and they
are on the cutting edge of this. This amendment is supported by the
American Farm Bureau; the Business Coalition for Fair Competition; and
MAPPS, the association of mapping and geospatial firms.
I understand the arguments on the other side, but I think it is
important that we stay on the cutting edge and we move forward in the
private sector and not empower and enrich the government sector in this
regard. So with

[[Page H4881]]

all due respect, I hope that my colleagues will vote in favor of the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, in closing, based upon the way we read
this amendment, it would shut down the Department of the Interior's
current operations and eliminate its ability to use unmanned aircraft
systems. While that may not be the intent of the amendment, that is
what it says and does, according to our folks who have read through it.
Now, hopefully next year, as we go through the authorization process,
we can come back here and have a policy because I believe in private
contracting for these type of services, but right now I don't want to
have the unintended consequence of taking away vital equipment that is
being utilized at this time. So I would reluctantly oppose the
gentleman's amendment and hope that we could come to a resolution
within the next year and not just within the Department of the
Interior. There are other departments who use this.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 80 Offered by Mr. Perry

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 80
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. Appropriations made in this Act for the
Environmental Protection Agency are hereby reduced by 17
percent.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. PERRY. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will reduce the funding to the
Environmental Protection Agency by 17 percent to ensure the EPA
bureaucrats are not immune to the negative impacts of their actions in
the form of regulation. You wonder why 17 percent. I am going to get to
that.
EPA regulations generally jeopardize our Nation's access to
affordable, reliable power and will lead to skyrocketing electricity
costs. By their own admission, and by design, unelected, unaccountable
bureaucrats in the EPA are pursuing an ideological agenda while
imposing real costs in the real world on the economy and on everyday
Americans.
An analysis conducted by the National Economic Research Associates,
or NERA, in November of 2015 found compliance with the Clean Power Plan
would cost consumers and businesses nearly $300 billion from 2022 to
2033. Now, despite these staggering costs, the Clean Power Plan will
have virtually no effect on climate change as it reduces atmospheric
CO2 concentrations by less than one-half of 1 percent. One-
half of 1 percent, and that cost $300 billion in that period of time.
NERA estimates the Clean Power Plan will burden Pennsylvania--the
State where I am privileged to represent a district--with an average
annual electricity price of 17 percent. That is where I came up with
the 17 percent. They are saying that my constituents are going to pay
17 percent more for their power. So it seems to me that the EPA should
feel the pain as well. You can see what the estimated burden imposed on
each State is by the Clean Power Plan at the Web site
www.americaspower.org/nera. You can check it out for yourself. Because
you don't live in Pennsylvania, it might be a little more, it might be
a lot more.
This amendment will ensure that bureaucrats in the EPA will feel the
impact that their ideological agenda has imposed on the American
citizen by reducing the appropriations for the EPA by 17 percent. My
consumers, my citizens, my voters didn't have any choice in this. They
are just going to have to pay 17 percent more for their electricity.
This amounts to a funding reduction of about $1.4 billion. That is what
it costs the EPA. It costs every one of my consumers 17 percent every
time they pay their electricity bill. It is only fair that the EPA is
forced to make hard decisions as to how to divide up its smaller
budgets as it has forced to do what the families that I am privileged
to represent have to do if this rule is enacted.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I don't want the gentleman from
Pennsylvania to think I am picking on him because I certainly
understand and share the gentleman's frustration with EPA and with this
administration's overzealous regulatory agenda. In fact, in this bill,
as the gentleman well knows, we tried to reverse all of the
overreaching agenda that this administration has placed on the American
people.
We have gone through this bill line by line for the Agency's budget
to identify areas for targeted and strategic cuts. In total, fiscal
year 2017 bill cuts EPA by $164 million, and $291 million below Obama's
budget request. The bill cuts EPA's air regulatory program $25 million
below the enacted level and $93 million below President Obama's budget
request. The bill denies the Obama administration's request for
additional staff at EPA and keeps the number of EPA personnel at the
lowest level since 1989. That is when George Herbert Walker Bush was
President. I am sure you would like to go back to 1976, but I think we
have done a pretty good job of cutting it back to 1989.
Unfortunately, the gentleman's amendment would penalize States by
cutting the grants they need. It would reduce the funding for the clean
water and drinking water grants, which support construction jobs in
every district. It would impact the geographic program, such as the
Great Lakes, that are important to many Members. It would reduce
funding for the clean-up of toxic Superfund sites, and, unfortunately,
the gentleman's proposal for a general cut would impact all those
important programs.
I would like to remind the gentleman that with the cuts included in
this bill, we have already cut EPA funding by $2.3 billion or 23
percent in this bill since 2011. So we have continuously done this
every year. I looked at this bill very carefully and have tried to do
everything we could to make sure that we do responsible cuts to the
Environmental Protection Agency without damaging the environment.
Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly oppose this amendment. I think I have
said everything I need to say about this.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the chairman's
efforts over these many years, and I support everything he has done.
What vexes me is with everything that we have done and he has done, the
EPA still has found a way to reach into the pockets of my consumers,
the people that I represent and take 17 percent of their power bill.
They didn't say: Well, you have to take it out of the food budget or,
you know, your kids' Boy Scouts dues. They just said: We are taking it
right off the top. That is what they said to the consumers I have to
represent.
Apparently, no matter how much we take from them or have taken from
them so far, they haven't gotten the message yet. I appreciate your
position, but in an effort to stand up for the citizens I represent as
strongly as I can and to say we don't want a 17 percent hike in our
power bills just because the EPA says so, I am going to

[[Page H4882]]

ask that my colleagues support the amendment and heap a little more
trouble on the EPA, as they are heaping the trouble on the constituents
that I am privileged to represent.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania
will be postponed.
The Acting CHAIR. The Committee will rise informally.
The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Ratcliffe) assumed the chair.

____________________