Gary Palmer

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chair, again, I appreciate the response of the chairman, who, I again want to reiterate, has done a fine job in the appropriations process, and I appreciate his concerns about this. I intend to meet with Secretary Pruitt. I have known him for quite some time and have full confidence in his ability to lead the EPA in a much better direction than it has been over the last few years. He inherited this problem. This is not an effort by the EPA to militarize. They already are militarized. This example I gave you from the State of Alabama is just one example of other instances in the State of Alabama, other instances around the country. We depend on law enforcement to handle confrontational situations. I don't think anyone expects a Federal agency to have people who are trained to the degree that our law enforcement is to handle situations where someone might get injured or killed. So it is, I think, totally appropriate for us at this point to redirect this funding, to remove this funding for armed agents, who, by the way, as I said early on, and if you want to see this report from Open the Books, we are purchasing 75-millimeter ammunition, 30- millimeter ammunition. It is hard to imagine what purpose they have for ammunition of that size. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Walker for arranging this Special Order. Looking ahead, H.R. 850, the Agency Accountability Act, would be a game changer for government run amuck. In 2015, Federal agencies collected over $530 billion--that is billion dollars--in fees, fines, and other revenue independent of the appropriations process. Article I, section 9, clause 7 of the Constitution grants Congress the power of the purse. This assigns to Congress the role of final arbiter of the use of public funds. Allowing agencies to have slush funds outside of the normal appropriations process is a recipe for bad acting. For instance, during the Obama administration, the Department of Justice would send money collected through fees and settlements to political activist groups aligned with the administration policies; many times in contradiction to Congress' will. Nearly 15 percent of the Department of Justice's entire budget is from alternative funding sources, not Congress. However, DOJ isn't a lone wolf. The Department of Labor has raised over $1.3 billion from fines and fees and the Environmental Protection Agency collected over $600 million, just to name a few.

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding and allowing me to complete my remarks on this Special Order organized by Congressman Walker. As I was saying, if you recall the 2014 debate over funding for the Department of Homeland Security, the Obama administration made it clear that they would contravene the will of Congress with regard to President Obama's amnesty order and would fund his amnesty program using fines and fees. The Department of Homeland Security had over $400 million that the Department could spend outside of what Congress appropriated. It is unacceptable for agencies to ignore the will of Congress by funding programs outside of the typical appropriations process. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau gets all of its funding outside of Congress through transfers from the Federal Reserve and from fines imposed on financial institutions. The CFPB does not get one dime appropriated from Congress, meaning they are not subject to congressional oversight. When it comes to the CFPB, Congress has no power of the purse to ensure that that agency is accountable to Congress. One of the top priorities in the Republican Better Way agenda is our commitment to reclaim our Article I authority. The Agency Accountability Act would direct all fines, fees, and settlements to the Treasury, making them subject to the normal appropriations process. This would end the unconstitutional slush funds that allow programs to operate independently and outside the purview of Congress. Most importantly, it would allow for Congress to fully account for how much money the government actually collects and where that money is coming from. The House should take up the Agency Accountability Act and pass it. Mr. Speaker, again, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Ratcliffe and the committee for their work on this bill. The internet is an ever-increasing medium for criminals to carry out crimes, such as sex trafficking, credit card theft, and identity theft. We are currently witnessing an unprecedented global cyber attack. Attacks such as this threaten our economy and our national security. This highlights the need for law enforcement to be trained at local, State, and national levels to recognize and combat this activity. Prior to 2008, training for State and local law enforcement and cybercrimes was difficult to find. Recognizing this problem in 2007, the State of Alabama 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. The National Computer Forensics Institute, NCFI, opened its doors in May of 2008. State and local law enforcement officers come from all across the Nation to be trained at this one-of-a-kind facility, where they are trained by Secret Service agents on the same equipment and same software that our Secret Service agents use. NCFI has trained law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and judges from all 50 States, and its graduates represent over 500 agencies. They are not only trained in solving crimes but also in prosecution. I am pleased that the work that NCFI does is being recognized, and I am proud to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 1616. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, with the passing of Phyllis Schlafly America lost one of its greatest women leaders. I first met Phyllis around 1990 shortly after I began work with the Alabama Family Alliance, which later became the Alabama Policy Institute. I was tremendously impressed with her intellect and clarity on American culture and politics. She ranks with William F. Buckley as one of the intellectual giants who helped launch the modern conservative movement. Phyllis had the clarity of thought and the communication skills of Reagan that gave her the ability to connect with women and men from all walks of life. In many respects, she was America's version of Margaret Thatcher. Her self-published book, ``A Choice, Not An Echo,'' had an enormous impact on the 1964 Republican Convention that resulted in Barry Goldwater winning the party's nomination for president. That book eventually sold over 3 million copies and launched her nationally as one of the most influential conservatives in American history. Mrs. Schlafly was a prolific writer with 18 more books, as well as a gifted speaker. In 1972 Phyllis founded Eagle Forum and successfully led the effort to prevent the ratification of the so-called Equal Rights Amendment. The Ladies Home Journal ranked her among the 100 most influential women of the 20th Century. Frankly, she should be ranked among the 100 most influential leaders of the 20th Century regardless of gender. I am proud to have had the opportunity to know her and work with her and her colleagues at Eagle Forum. Phyllis Schlafly lived by her faith and values to the very end and left a great legacy as an American leader for all Americans.

Mr. PALMER

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

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

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. PALMER. Madam Chair, I commend the gentleman from California for his and his colleagues' work on this bill. Madam Chair, my amendment would eliminate funding for the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act grant program, saving taxpayers $100 million. Funds from this program have gone to a number of questionable items, including $750,000 for cherry pickers in Utah, $1 million for electrified parking spaces at a truck stop in Delaware, and $1.2 for a new engine and generators for a 1950s locomotive in Pennsylvania. This program was intended to be a short-term effort to assist States and local governments in meeting diesel emissions standards, but has joined a long list of temporary government programs for which there is no end in sight. As Ronald Reagan famously said that, ``The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this Earth is a government program.'' One of the things I have learned as a freshman Member of Congress is that we have an office tasked with holding Federal agencies accountable and reporting on their programs. That office is the Government Accountability Office. One of the things that has surprised me is how rarely we act on their recommendations. I hope that won't be the case with this program. The GAO has noted that funding to reduce diesel emissions is fragmented across 14 programs at the Department of Energy, the Department of Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Surely we can make do with one less. The $100 million provided in this bill represents an increase of 100 percent compared to last year's bill and an increase of 100 percent compared to the omnibus bill passed in December. With a national debt exceeding $19 trillion, and growing every day, we cannot afford to double the budget of a program that clearly duplicates, at least in part, 13 other programs, and has a marginal impact at best. The program was originally authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and was reauthorized for 5 years in 2010. This authorization expired in fiscal year 2016, making any appropriation an unauthorized one. Congress should not provide $100 million for a wasteful and unauthorized program, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALMER. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's concerns. Over the last 30 years or so, the air quality in the United States has improved dramatically, despite the fact that we have seen huge increases in vehicle miles traveled, a 30-something percent increase in our GDP, and a 30-something percent increase in population. Yet, we have seen dramatic improvement in air quality, and I appreciate the fact that government programs have had a part to play in that. In regard to the savings, the EPA has said that for every dollar we spend, we will get $14 in benefits. I would also like to point out that they also say that the Clean Power Plan will help the economy and that EPA regulations haven't lost jobs. I think the EPA estimates on savings are a little suspect. The program was funded at $30 million in FY 2015 and $50 million in 2016. Now we are considering a bill to increase it to $100 million in 2017. We cannot afford to continue spending without limits and pretend as if there are no consequences. Keep in mind that there are 14 programs. Surely, we can consolidate these into one effective program. I also think it is important to note that this was supposed to expire after the first authorization. It was reauthorized for 4 more years. And that expires this year, making any appropriation for FY 2017 another wasteful, unauthorized program. The Republican Study Committee budget recommended elimination and noted that the grants have gone to a number of wasteful programs. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALMER. May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. PALMER. In regard to the EPA, the gentleman from California cited an EPA finding on the benefits and my response to that--that it is not a regulatory program--but that is beside the fact. What it is, is a duplication of other programs. It is unauthorized and it is wasteful. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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, I would like, first of all, to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw) for his work on this bill. My amendment would prohibit funds from being used to implement the District of Columbia's Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014, or RHNDA. The Declaration of Independence declares that: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.'' These founding principles remain true today. The reason life was included by our Founders as the first principle is because without life there is no liberty; it is a prerequisite for liberty. Without life, there is no pursuit of happiness. In fact, it is self-evident, without life, there isn't even a discussion about any rights. Liberty encompasses social and political freedoms, and the tenets associated with liberty were those used in drafting the First Amendment to the Constitution. With life and liberty, you can pursue happiness. Take away either and the pursuit becomes difficult or impossible. My amendment protects all three, but I will focus my comments on liberty as it relates to the free exercise of religion clause in the First Amendment. The First Amendment states in part that: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' Without my amendment, some employers in the District of Columbia would not only be prohibited from exercising their religion, but would be forced to embrace the beliefs of the 13 members of the D.C. Council. The District of Columbia allows abortions until the moment of birth, but a number of employers in the District of Columbia believe in the sanctity of life and protecting it. In fact, many organizations in D.C.--such as March for Life, Americans United for Life, and the National Right to Life Committee--exist solely to protect life. The Constitution provides them the right to exercise those beliefs, just like it does those who oppose it. That is why when the District of Columbia passed the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014, former Mayor Vincent Gray expressed concerns about the law. In December 2014, Gray wrote a letter to the D.C. Council about RHNDA, describing it as ``legally problematic'' and saying: ``. . . the bill raises serious concerns under the Constitution and under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. Religious organizations, religiously affiliated organizations, religiously driven for-profit entities, and political organizations may have strong First Amendment and RFRA grounds for challenging the law's applicability to them.'' Employers who oppose abortions and paying for them as part of a compensation package have every right to exercise their freedom not to do so, and those who want to receive abortions or have them paid for have every right to seek employment from someone willing to do so. That is how freedom works. It does not work with one group imposing its version of freedom on the other, which is what this District law currently provides for. In its 2012 opinion in the case of Hosanna Tabor v. EEOC, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the right of religious organizations to hire employees that support the mission of the organization where their employees are responsible for carrying out its mission. The opinion says: ``The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statuses is undoubtedly important. But so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission.'' Would you require PETA to hire someone that comes to an interview in a fur coat? Would you require Planned Parenthood to hire a nun or anyone adamantly opposed to abortion? Neither of these situations makes sense, nor does requiring a pro-life organization to hire someone who explicitly contradicts their moral conscience or religious beliefs. The Supreme Court agrees. My amendment would restore religious freedom to employers inside the District of Columbia. Those who want to have abortions do not have to work for employers who oppose them. They have life and the liberty to pursue their own interests with another employer. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, obviously, Article I, section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution states that Congress shall have power ``to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District.'' Moving aside the jurisdictional issue, I take exception to my colleague's point that it is acceptable to infringe on the religious liberties of certain people, those who actually believe in protecting life. If those who don't believe in protecting life want to find employment, let them find employment at like-minded organizations. The D.C. government should not be able to compel pro-life organizations to hire pro-abortion employees. That is exactly what the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was in place to protect, as Mayor Gray pointed out in his letter to the D.C. Council. I can't say that I always agree with the Mayor, but his serious concerns were, and remain to be, completely valid. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government's most important responsibility is to protect this Nation and our citizens, particularly when it comes to defending against cyber attacks. In June and July of last year, 2015, the Office of Personnel Management announced the largest government data breach in history. The personally identifiable information of over 22 million Americans was compromised, including background investigation and fingerprint data. The national security impact of the OPM data breach will resonate for decades. Under the Federal Information Security Management Act, or FISMA, the head of each agency is responsible for securing its information systems from unauthorized access and other threats posed to our Nation's security and economic vitality. But under a mistaken interpretation of FISMA, the Federal Labor Relations Authority determined Federal employee unions can block agencies from taking action to implement cybersecurity protections against direct risks until the agencies first negotiate on them. Mr. Chairman, the security of Americans' data is nonnegotiable and should not be eligible for bargaining. Securing hundreds of millions of Americans' data and millions of Federal employees' data is more important than the convenience of a few Federal employees in using government computer systems for personal use. This bill ensures that the head of a Federal agency does not just have the responsibility to swiftly secure the agency's networks, but also has the authority to do so, and without having to go through collective bargaining. The next time a Federal agency acts in the interest of securing Americans' data, the head of the agency should be confident the action will not be challenged because the agency did not engage in bargaining over cybersecurity. I believe this is an important step that we can take to empower Federal agencies to act quickly to secure agency networks and protect Americans from cyber attacks. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice).

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross).

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

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) aware that I have no further speakers and I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.