[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.

  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. Mr. Chairman, this amendment prevents the Department of 
the Interior and the EPA from using

[[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.

                          ____________________