Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment, along with my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee.

The amendment is very simple. It offers a choice for those in Congress to make. It is a choice for Members to vote on whether we want to keep our public lands public or not.

Very simply, my amendment says that none of the funds available through this bill can be used in violation of the law with regard to keeping our public lands public. This amendment would not undo anything or undermine any current congressional or administrative land exchanges that are done legally.

The amendment would, however, prohibit the use of funds in this bill to pursue any extra-legal ways to turn Federal land over to private owners through various things like a commission, or others that have been espoused.

The district I have the honor of representing in Colorado is over 60 percent public lands. Public lands are not only beautiful and majestic, but they are the fundamental drivers of our mountain area economies in counties like Grand and Eagle and Summit Counties.

Public lands are good for our body, mind, and soul. A U.S. Army veteran of the Kosovo and Iraq war who lives in Colorado recently said: ``I fought to protect all that makes our Nation great, and that includes the public lands that belong to every American.''

Not only are our public lands good for our souls, but they are also one of our largest economic drivers in our State and throughout the Rocky Mountain region and, indeed, across the country. Over $646 billion is generated economically through our public lands, and visiting our public lands supports over 6 million jobs. From small businesses to ski resorts, from gas stations to diners, our economy thrives largely in part because of the public lands in areas like the one I have the honor of representing.

A recent poll across six Western States revealed that 96 percent of Americans support protecting public lands for future generations. Clearly, it is a top priority for our families. People want to see our public lands stay public and they want to see the maintenance for access of outdoor areas on our public lands as a critical focus of the Federal Government.

States simply don't have the resources to take on the responsibilities for maintaining and keeping our Federal lands safe. Selling these lands outright to private owners would undoubtedly lead to loss of access, loss of jobs, devastate our economy, and hurt the quality of life in districts like mine.

If you talk to the people on the ground who use these lands, whether it is sportsmen and recreational shooters, hikers, bikers, campers, hunters, or motorized activists, they don't want our land, the land they use, taken away from them. Obviously, those concerned with environmental well-being, water quality, and public health also strongly support our public lands.

With this amendment, I offer a clear choice to my colleagues. Support the protection of public lands and let's cast a vote to do that. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I, again, thank the gentleman that there is not any sale of public lands in this bill. I would point out that there are Members in this body--in fact, the chair of the authorizing committee in this general area--who speak regularly about privatizing our public lands, so there is a real threat. This is not simply something that comes out of nowhere. I think the peace of mind that we would get by including this kind of language in an appropriations bill would make it very clear that Congress supports the opinion of the American people, supports the economy in districts like mine, and wants to keep our public lands public.

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment along with my colleagues Mr. Peter King of New York and Mr. Raul Ruiz of California. The amendment is small, but its impact is large and very important to our three districts and many others across the country that have rural towns with volunteer fire departments.

All this amendment does is increase funding for the Volunteer Fire Assistance grant program from $13 million to $15 million. VFA funds are awarded to volunteer fire departments that protect small communities of less than 10,000 people and help them prepare to respond to wildfires.

Sadly, I have a perfect example of this need in my district right now. The small town of Nederland in Boulder County, Colorado, is battling the Cold Springs forest fire, with the fire crews largely made up of volunteers, initially. As just one example, Charlie Schmidtmann, who is a captain with the Nederland Fire Protection District, and Bretlyn Schmidtmann, who is an ER nurse, a paramedic, and volunteer firefighter already lost their home to the Cold Springs fire, even as they continue to work to save neighbors' homes. It is this sort of heroic work that we need to support through the funding that they need so they have the tools that they need to fight fires swiftly and effectively.

For some reason, we still don't treat fires the way we treat other natural disasters. Wildfires are underfunded when it comes to mitigation, prevention, and suppression. Fires often occur in rural communities with smaller populations.

The Volunteer Fire Assistance program is critical to moving the needle on wildfire management, preventing large wildfires from getting out of hand while they are still small. Though this grant program is small, its impact is incredible. The Volunteer Fire Assistance program provides matching funds to volunteer fire departments protecting communities with 10,000 or fewer residents.

Volunteer fire departments provide nearly 80 percent of the initial attack on wildfires across the United States, but, unfortunately, these volunteer fire departments frequently lack significant financial resources. $2 million may not sound like a lot in this town, but it makes an enormous difference for our volunteer fire departments across the country.

In recent years, the threat of wildland fires has increased steadily across the country. The 10-year average cost to the Federal Government of suppressing wildland fires continues to go up; but instead of funding communities that might be able to suppress the fires in the initial phase, we have been underfunding that very program that can save taxpayer money by preventing large forest fires.

I ask for your support for this amendment, which has been endorsed by the National Association of State Foresters and International Association of Fire Chiefs, in adding $2 million to this program.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman for accepting this important amendment on behalf of the many small towns and volunteer fire departments across the United States.

I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, wild free-roaming horses and burros are a living symbol of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West, like in my home State of Colorado.

My amendment will help to prevent the Bureau of Land Management from destroying this iconic symbol using funds allocated in this bill to be used for surgical sterilization of horses.

What distinguishes America's wild horses from their domestic counterparts is their natural behaviors and their complex social organizations. Surgical sterilization will take the wild out of wild horses by removing the horse's ability to utilize the reproductive organs that drive their natural behavior and changing their hormonal structure. It turns them into little more than pasture horses, destroying their complex social organizations and inalterably changing the free-roaming behaviors that Congress sought to protect when we passed the Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971.

The way surgical sterilization of our horses is conducted under the guise of population control is simply cruel. A 2013 National Academy of Sciences study report identifies many strategies for fertility control and supports the use of PZP, or immunocontraception, which has been underutilized.

Rather than using taxpayer funds and do expensive roundups and expensive operations, we have effective dart-delivered birth control that is a fraction of the cost and is more humane and preserves the wild character of the herds. The National Academy of Sciences notes that sterilization is the least recommended of the approaches. There is not good data, it is untested in wild horses, and the risks associated are simply unnecessary.

BLM noted that fertility control is viable if used appropriately. It is important to maintain the population size of these herds. Of course, we can agree that some form of fertility control is needed.

Sterilization affects both male and female wild horses. In both cases experts have flat out said they are bad ideas. Ovariectomies, tubal ligations, and laser ablation are planned techniques to be used on wild horse mares. Two of the three techniques have never been performed on horses, let alone wild mares and fillies.

The National Academy of Sciences, once again, stated clearly that castrating stallions will cause loss of testosterone and consequential reduction in or complete loss of male type of behaviors necessary for maintenance of social organization, band integrity, and expression of a natural behavior repertoire. Scientists believe this mass sterilization program could essentially lead to the end of wild horses and burros in the West.

Luckily, BLM does have a better and cheaper tool. The PZP birth control vaccine is an example. It is deliverable by a remote dart. It is relatively cheap--$25 a dose. The surgical interventions cost far more.

Numerous studies have demonstrated the cost effectiveness and efficacy of this vaccine in managing wild horse populations. But instead of expanding its use, the BLM has incorrectly reduced it over the last several years. Contraception alternatives have been available since the 1980s. But BLM, unfortunately, continues to ignore this approach despite the National Academy of Sciences report indicating these vaccines are the most promising fertility control methods to help limit the population growth for wild horses and burros.

Examples of successful use of PZP has been noted in the McCullough Peak herds in Wyoming and Assateague herds in Virginia and Maryland.

Look, these kinds of procedures destroy the wild nature of horses. They are a waste of taxpayer money, and they are inhumane. The National Academy of Sciences advised against the surgical removal of ovaries, warning the possibility that ovariectomies may be followed by prolonged bleeding or infection makes it inadvisable for field application.

The final point I want to make is that this proposal by BLM has raised overwhelming opposition by the general public for whom our wild horses and burros are very popular. Over 20,000 citizens submitted comments in opposition to this plan. The public wants its wild horses protected, and, of course, we need to control the population, but we should not surgically mutilate our wild horses.

I would like to ask for the ranking member and chairman to work with me to make sure the BLM spends our taxpayer money more wisely and protects the iconic symbol of the American West.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his commitment to work with us protecting wild horses.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source