Gary Palmer

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. First of all, I thank my colleagues who have spoken in support of this legislation and say that this is sensible and responsible legislation to increase Federal agencies' ability to protect their data systems and, thus, increase the protections offered every Federal employee. This bill also increases accountability for Federal employees, and it requires the IRS to adhere to the same recordkeeping requirements that it imposes on every taxpayer. Finally, Mr. Chairman, this bill would end the practice of subjecting Americans to a barrage of regulations imposed by an outgoing administration that can no longer be held accountable. I urge adoption of the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes technical changes to the bill to reflect the text of H.R. 4612, the Midnight Rule Relief Act of 2016, as it was reported out of committee. Mr. Chairman, my manager's amendment simply makes a few technical and conforming changes to this important legislation. The amendment corrects a technical error in the language of title VI, and it also fixes references to several other sections within the bill, to reflect the obvious intent of the bill text. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the proposed amendment of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia. Her amendment would eliminate provisions in the Government Reform and Improvement Act that deal with holding members of the Senior Executive Service, or SES, accountable. For example, the amendment would strike section 402 of the bill, which extends the probationary period for individuals appointed to the SES from 1 to 2 years. Extending the probationary period allows Federal agencies to ensure that senior executives they hire are suitable for the job they hold. After the probationary period ends, it becomes much harder to remove an SES employee not suited for the position. It is in the best interests of the American people that the members of the SES be fully vetted before their appointments become final. I should also note that section 1105 of the FY 2016 National Defense Authorization Act established a 2-year probationary period for new civilian hires at the Department of Defense. This good government reform is already in place at one of the largest Federal agencies, and we should extend it to the rest of the Federal Government as well. The amendment in question would also strip provisions that allow SES appointees to be removed for such cause as would promote the efficiency of the service and to be suspended without pay for less than 2 weeks for misconduct. These rules already apply to the vast majority of the Federal civil service, and they should apply to SES appointees as well. In addition, the gentlewoman's amendment would eliminate a portion of the bill that gives agency heads authority to place on mandatory annual leave SES appointees facing removal for misconduct and prohibits the accumulation of additional leave during this period. It would also eliminate a provision that gives agency heads the authority to seek removal or transfer of senior executives based on poor performance or misconduct, and that would provide an expedited appeal process for the aggrieved employee. The American people deserve an accountable Senior Executive Service that plays by the same rules as other Federal civil service workers. They also deserve an SES staffed with highly qualified employees who can be efficient and effective in their jobs. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject the gentlewoman's amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of this bill. It creates a loophole in the moratorium period for midnight regulations. The bill establishes a regulation moratorium period between election day and the start of a new President's term to allow a new administration to start with a clean slate. This amendment would undermine that principle by allowing outgoing Presidents to simply put a marker down a year before the end of the term to circumvent the moratorium entirely. Further, pushing regulations out the door at the last minute reduces the effectiveness of regulatory review at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs regardless of whether the public is aware that an agency is working on the regulation. The unified regulatory agenda, while very important for notice and transparency, does not provide details on the regulation or the expected impact on the economy and small businesses. Simply notifying the public that an agency is considering regulating in a particular area is insufficient to ensure that regulatory analysis at the agency and at OIRA has been thoroughly evaluated. Agencies can simply wait until the start of the next President's term to issue regulations, giving everyone more time to make sure they have gotten it right. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Arkansas for putting together this Special Order and for those excessively kind compliments. The budget should present a vision to the American people and should reflect how the American people approach their own finances. As of late, we simply have not governed according to the standards that the average American governs by. While we have reduced deficit spending over the last few years, the fact is that we continue to spend more than we take in, adding billions more to our burgeoning debt. This budget provides us with an opportunity not to repeat the mistakes of the past. Democrats and Republicans can find common ground to get our fiscal house in order. I want to point out three commonsense solutions to the financial crisis that we face. First, we can reform the Medicare payment system. Medicare currently uses more than a dozen different payment systems to set payment rates for medical items and services that the program covers for beneficiaries. The location where someone receives a service determines which payment system applies. Republicans and the President believes this should be corrected. According to the President's own budget, a site- neutral system would save $10 billion over 10 years. Second, the General Accountability Office has identified $125 billion in improper payments made in 2014. This is where the government sends a check to someone not entitled to it. The GAO attributes about 65 percent of this to just three programs: Health and Human Services' Medicare fee-for-service, Medicaid, and the Treasury's earned income tax credit. Just three programs account for almost $81 billion per year in improper payments. Combined, if we are averaging about $100 billion a year in improper payments over this 10-year window that we always talk about with the budget, that is $1 trillion. Some of these payments are being sent to dead people. Certainly, no one should be opposed to correcting this problem. The GAO points out that interagency communication is not at its finest, but also that there are major errors within the Social Security Administration's death data. Some files show a person's death preceding their recorded birth date. Others show age of death between 115 and 195. According to the ``Guinness World Records'' book, in the modern age, the oldest person ever lived to the age of 122. If Social Security's records are correct, they need to inform the Guinness World Records that someone outlived Ms. Jeanne Louise Calment by 73 years. If we could eliminate these erroneous payments just based on what was paid out in 2014, as I pointed out, that is over $1 trillion in 10 years. I think we can all agree that that would be a great start toward getting our fiscal house in order. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am not an advocate of more taxes, but we could do a better job of collecting those that are actually due. As of September 30, 2014, the Internal Revenue Service's total tax debt inventory was $380 billion, which is a 23 percent increase since 2009. This is $380 billion in uncollected taxes. I think it is safe to assume that we would prefer not to have our hard-earned dollars taken from us, but I also think it is safe to assume that the average person would be disgusted to hear that, while they are paying taxes, others are failing to pay theirs. One other thing that we could do in the area of tax reform, since I brought that up, is corporate income tax. It is estimated that there are more than $2 trillion in revenues that are being held offshore that could be repatriated to this country if we lowered our corporate income tax rate, which could, again, provide a substantial flow of revenue to help us address our deficits and pay down our budget. All this is to say that we need to be more efficient in collecting what we owe and spending what we collect. The budget process is where we can begin to get our fiscal house in order. Just in these examples, there are over $1 trillion in savings from eliminating waste, fraud and abuse, and making some sensible reforms. Not only can we balance the budget without increasing spending, we can have a surplus. Let's work together and use these commonsense solutions to restore our fiscal house.

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the veto override. James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper 51: ``It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.'' As expected, President Obama vetoed a reconciliation bill that would repeal the misnamed Affordable Care Act. This was within his constitutional authority. However, our Founders created a balance of powers within the three branches to prevent tyranny by one. With two- thirds, we have the opportunity to override a veto that doesn't correlate with the views of the American public. We have the opportunity to listen to the American people and put healthcare decisions back in their hands. With this override, we have the opportunity to begin the process of real healthcare reform that provides the American people with healthcare choices, choices they can afford, choices that allow people to keep their doctors, choices that provide a safety net rather than a net that entraps people into a government program, and choices that allow people to keep their jobs. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this veto override and put the power to legislate back in the hands of the legislators.

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, the President's executive orders relating to gun control are a major distraction from the real national security issues. Frankly, I think dealing with ISIS and confronting Iran over their violations of this administration's agreement with them and securing our borders are of greater importance than pushing gun control measures that will do little to protect us. Apparently, this administration is more concerned about 4 million senior citizens on Social Security owning a gun than they are about a nuclear-armed Iran or terrorists crossing our unsecured borders. The fact that millions of Americans have purchased firearms over the weeks following the shootings in San Bernardino is indicative that they have lost confidence in this administration's ability to protect them. They are literally taking personal responsibility for their own safety. It could be argued that these Americans are creating their own homeland security. Pushing executive orders for more gun control that exceed the President's constitutional authority will not only do little to improve our national security, it will do little to increase the public's confidence in this administration's policies for protecting our homeland. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose this latest abuse and overreach of executive authority and reassert the lawmaking authority of Congress. I urge all my colleagues in the House to focus our attention on defeating ISIS, on restraining Iran, and on securing our borders in order to protect American citizens right here in our homeland. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Indiana for leading this Special Order for this critical discussion.

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), and I want to commend my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), for his eloquent and passionate defense of constitutional government. It is not just the administration's efforts here to ratify something and bypass Congress without any input from us, but they are also making laws through agencies, such as the EPA. We are engaged right now in a debate over the Clean Power Plan, which is a reiteration of cap-and- trade. It is all about regulating greenhouse gases. They have started this process because in 2007, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, said that the Clean Air Act gave the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse emissions. Not everyone agrees with that. As you see here on the easel, I have a quote from former Representative John Dingell. This is what he had to say about the Supreme Court's decision in EPA v. Massachusetts. He said: ``Like most members of this committee, I think the Supreme Court came up with a very much erroneous decision on whether the Clean Air Act covers greenhouse gases. Like many of the members of this committee I was present when we wrote that legislation. We thought it was clear enough that we didn't clarify it, thinking that even the Supreme Court was not stupid enough to make that finding.'' I want to state for the record, Mr. Speaker, that I am in no way making personal references to the members of the Court, particularly the five who voted for that decision. That is Mr. Dingell's opinion. But I think it is clear that it was never Congress' intent to allow the EPA to do this. The point here is that we have had a debate over regulating greenhouse gases. We did that in 2010 in the form of the cap-and-trade bill. And Congress, with Democrat majorities in both Houses, said ``no.'' Yet the President is intent on making the United States a party to a legally-binding agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that will have almost no measurable impact on global temperatures. The EPA has admitted that in testimony before the Science Committee. This is basically a public relations effort to encourage other nations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. As Mr. Rothfus has pointed out, the cost on the American economy, and particularly on low- income families, will be enormous. Also, on single-income households and senior citizens. Even the former lead author of the International Panel on Climate Change, Philip Lloyd, asserted in a new paper that there is strong likelihood that the major portion of observed warming is due to natural variation. If it is due to natural variation, there is little to nothing that we can do about it. Congress has been bypassed by the EPA and other Federal agencies for too long. Is time to stand up and reassert ourselves as the sole body empowered to make law under the Constitution. The debate over greenhouse gases and climate change is not the central issue. This is really about the EPA and this administration usurping the authority of Congress to make a law. As my friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly) explained, the issue is that the authority of Congress, and consequently the right of American citizens to representation and the making of our Nation's laws is being seriously diminished. Under our Constitution, Congress makes the law and is held accountable by the people through elections. The effort to restrain the EPA is more than a policy position on an issue, but a matter of fidelity to the Constitution and the clear separation of powers doctrine that is essential to the successful functioning of our government. As the people's elected Representatives, and I want to emphasize it is elected Representatives, not elected bystanders, it should be one of our top priorities to reassert Congress as the originator of law and reestablish congressional accountability for the regulations issued by Federal agencies, by requiring a vote on the regulations that have a significant impact on the economy. This would have a devastating impact on the economy. By doing so, not only will the economy benefit, but the Representative and accountable government will be restored in the process. I urge all my colleagues to support my friend from Pennsylvania's resolution to require that the President submit any agreement reached in Paris to the Senate for their advice and consent.

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman. As has been noted, prior to 2008, training for State and local law enforcement in cybercrimes was difficult to find. Recognizing this problem in 2007, the State of Alabama took the lead and offered the Secret Service and the Department of Homeland Security property and funds to construct a state-of-the-art facility if the Federal Government would fund the training and allow the Secret Service to operate it. I am proud to say this facility is located in my district in the city of Hoover. Since the NCFI opened its doors in May of 2008, State and local law enforcement officers, as has been mentioned already, have come from all across the Nation for vital training in this one-of-a-kind facility, where they are trained by Secret Service agents on the same equipment and software that our Secret Service agents use. NCFI has trained law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and judges from all 50 States, and literally has graduates from hundreds of agencies around the country. I am very proud of the work that NCFI is doing, that it is being recognized, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 3490.

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Madam Speaker, this is a fundamental American value. For our Founders, life was the first right. They understood that there is an order to things that even nature teaches us. They understood and fully embraced that the first and foremost right is life because, without life, there is no liberty; without life, there is no pursuit of happiness; without life, there is no discussion of a right to privacy or a right to choose; because, without life, there is nothing to choose. Life presupposes and precedes all other rights. Our Founders understood this, but somewhere along the way to where we are now, we have gone from protecting the right that is the basis of all rights to deciding that unborn children and even children born alive can have their lives taken because their organs and tissues are more valuable than they are. It is inconceivable that a nation founded on the idea that life is the indispensable right, the indisputable right, could be at this place in our history when living children in their mother's womb--and even some who have been born alive--can be killed with the callousness and cold-bloodedness that none of our forefathers would have dreamed could exist in America. This decision whether to continue funding this barbaric practice is really about exposing the charade of the Federal Government supporting women's health care, when in fact it is really about subsidizing the killing and mutilation of babies with taxpayers' money. This has to stop.

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, sometimes overlooked in the debate surrounding wildfires is the importance of forestry practices intended to prevent the wildfires before they start. The Resilient Federal Forests Act, authored by my friend from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), passed the House in July with bipartisan support. Since then, there have been multiple fires, major fires that are raging across the country. This bill would simplify and streamline environmental process requirements and reduce the cost of forest management projects intended to prevent catastrophic wildfires. The bill would also allow for quick removal of dead trees to pay for reforestation after large fires and prevent the incidence of reburn. As wildfires continue to burn in the Western United States, with tremendous costs to people and property, it is important to note that these fires are literally sending billions of dollars of Federal assets up in smoke, depriving State government, local government, and the Federal Government of billions in revenues not just in wood products, but in recreation revenues. I am a small forest owner myself. I understand the value of a healthy well-managed forest. Mr. Speaker, America has already lost 9 million acres in valuable forests this year. Our forests continue to burn and more will be burned unless we act on this legislation. I encourage my colleagues in the Senate to quickly pass this much-needed legislation and send it to the President's desk.

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this ill-conceived agreement between our current administration and the fanatical regime ruling the nation of Iran. I find it impossible to understand how those who are sworn to protect the security and interests of the American people could enter into such a one-sided deal. This is a deal that expands the lethal potential of a ruthless regime by giving them a path to a nuclear weapon; a regime whose stated objective is the destruction of the United States; a regime committed to the complete and utter destruction of Israel, our most trusted friend and ally in the Middle East; and a regime that almost no one believes will honor this deal. It is incomprehensible that we would so blindly ignore the warnings of the world's most aggressive supporter of terrorism by allowing them access to $150 billion in assets and allowing them to use those assets to project their war against our Nation and our allies. If the rantings of this regime are not enough to cause us to reject this deal, then we should let history instruct us. This regime has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers. This regime has been responsible for the deaths of innocent civilians in Israel and other nations. In 2009, this regime murdered their own citizens who courageously advocated for the freedom of the Iranian people. The actions of the Iranian regime speak for themselves. Mr. Speaker, history is a great teacher, and I believe the past mistakes of world leaders who failed to recognize the lethal danger posed by ruthless and ambitious regimes have been written in the pages of history with the blood of millions upon millions of people. We must not allow our Nation to take rank with those nations and leaders who chose appeasement over courage, who chose to take what appeared to them to be the easy path, instead of bearing the responsibility of making the harder decision because it was the right decision. If the administration is correct that allowing the ruling regime in Iran to become armed with nuclear weapons will pose no threat to America and Israel, then no one will remember how the Members of this Congress voted; but if this administration and the supporters of this agreement are wrong and we suffer a catastrophic loss of lives, no one will ever forget what we did here. We will bear the burden of this vote for the rest of our lives. America's foreign policy is at a crossroads. I am reminded how a great President described how we should deal with dangerous nations. President Theodore Roosevelt said we should speak softly and carry a big stick. He described this approach as the exercise of intelligent forethought and of decisive action sufficiently far in advance of any likely crisis. This deal does not meet that standard. Mr. Speaker, this is the time when the burden of leadership that has been entrusted to every Member of Congress falls most heavily upon us. The American people look to us to do our duty and bear this responsibility without regard to party or politics, to put their safety and security first and foremost. I urge all the Members of this House to put aside the politics and partisanship that otherwise divide us and stand together in opposition to this deal.

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2722.

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment limits the funding of the EPA's Diesel Emissions Reduction Program. The Diesel Emissions Reduction Program is part of the National Clean Diesel Campaign. This grant program was created in 2005 as a short-term effort to assist States and local government to meet new diesel emissions standards for older diesel engines. According to the Obama administration, the overall impact of the program has been marginal. Currently, there are 14 grant and loan programs at the Department of Energy, the Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, plus three tax activities that have as a goal reducing mobile source diesel emissions. In addition, each of the 14 programs, according to the GAO, overlaps with at least one other program in the specific activities they fund, the program goals, or the eligible recipients of funding. GAO also identified several instances of duplication where more than one program provided grant funding to the same recipient for the same type of activities. One example identified by GAO showed a nonprofit organization received $1.1 million from EPA's Diesel Emissions Reduction Act program to install emission reduction and idle reduction technologies on 1,700 trucks, as well as $5.6 million from a State infrastructure bank established under DOT's program to equip trucks and truck fleets with emissions control and idle reduction devices-- essentially the same thing. Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government has become so large, it is impossible to grasp its true size and scope to pay for its cost. With the country facing unprecedented levels of debt, taxpayers expect the Federal Government to run more efficiently, guarding against careless waste of precious resources. It is essential that Congress, the administration, and Federal agencies do everything in their power to cut spending, reduce duplication, and rein in waste, fraud, and abuse. My amendment does just that, and it would have an annual savings of $50 million. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished colleague from California for his remarks, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, since 1984, the EPA has lowered the amount of pollutants from diesel engines by more than 98 percent. Since 1980, despite the fact that the gross domestic product has grown by over 460 percent, vehicle miles have increased by 94 percent, the population has grown 38 percent, energy production 32 percent, emissions have gone down 50 percent. In regard to the impact of these programs, you have 14 programs that the GAO has identified as overlapping. It will do little harm to the overall effort for air quality to eliminate one program that is clearly a duplication in several instances identified by the GAO. In addition, Mr. Chairman, in regard to air quality, while air quality has improved dramatically--emissions are down 50 percent since 1980--respiratory illnesses such as asthma have gone up, and that is largely a byproduct of income. So I would commend to you that we need to reduce the number of regulations, the cost of regulations, to allow more economic activity and provide better job opportunities for people, which will have a direct impact on their overall welfare, including their health. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to again point out that it was a study from the University of California, Los Angeles that pointed out that children from low-income households suffer disproportionately from asthma, and as we continue to overregulate our economy and reduce the economic opportunities for people, we are going to continue to see these high rates of respiratory illnesses. My final point is that we are not eliminating this clean diesel program. We are eliminating one program out of 14. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.