Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CALVERT. 5538, and that I may include tabular material on the same.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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,
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman,
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source