Gary Palmer

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, the Environmental Protection Agency spends more than $45 million a year to fund a criminal enforcement division that employs almost 200 armed Federal agents. These agents have been involved in a number of troubling raids in Alaska, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and in my own State of Alabama. In Alaska, EPA agents wearing flak jackets and carrying M-16s showed up to review paperwork at a family-owned mining operation. In North Carolina, armed EPA agents visited Larry Keller after he sent an email to the regional administrator. In my home State of Alabama, armed EPA agents took over two waste treatment facilities in Dothan, Alabama. These agents were posted at each entrance to the plant and recorded identification information of all those going in and going out. Mr. Chairman, more than 70 Federal departments now employ armed personnel, most of which most Americans would never associate with law enforcement. These agencies include the EPA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Federal Reserve Board, and the National Institutes of Health. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit funding for these activities at EPA. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to my colleague from California, no one is in favor of allowing criminals to commit crimes at any level of the Federal Government or any part of the country. I do think it should be troubling to every Member of this body that we have gone over the line in regard to becoming what could be viewed as a police state. In regard to the raid on the Dothan wastewater treatment facility, that is a city facility; that is the Federal Government sending armed agents in full body armor with weapons to a municipal facility. I would beg the question: What was the threat assessment? This is going on in other parts of the country as well, and I think we have a responsibility to draw a line where law enforcement is involved. If there is a threat assessment that would indicate the need to have armed officers assist the EPA in an investigation or a raid, there is ample law enforcement available to do that. In that regard, I think this is an area where the EPA has overreached in respect to their responsibilities as regulators of the environment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman from Minnesota's response. I, too, agree that every Federal official deserves to be able to go home safe and sound to their family. That, though, does not address the specific issue here in regard to what is going on with the EPA. If there is a need for armed intervention with a business or, in this case, with a municipality, there should be a clear threat assessment. There isn't any. There was no reason for anyone to think that they needed to go in, in full body armor, with weapons drawn. I think that that is part of what is going on here that a lot of American citizens are concerned about, is the overreach of the government and particularly in regard to 70 Federal agencies having armed agents in their employment. I agree with the gentleman from California; this needs to be a broader discussion. In that regard, I think we should have that. In respect to my amendment, I think we need to divert this funding away from this armed agency that the EPA is deploying, I think, without proper course. In that regard, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, there was a comment about this is about governing. It really is. It is about governing constitutionally. We are no longer three separate but equal branches of government. The abuse of the executive order has diminished Congress, and the abuse of the Senate rules has diminished this House. We are now reduced to passing what the Senate will allow us to pass, and the Senate is reduced to passing what the President will not veto. This is about the Constitution. We have 3 more days in which we can consider legislation that upholds the rule of law and that restores the balance of powers. We should take those 3 days. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a day that we will remember for the rest of our lives. The country is looking to us right now to make a decision whether or not we will uphold our oath of office. I call upon every Member of this House to be an oath keeper.

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. I would. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Arizona for the work you have done on this. I know this has been--I don't want to say a labor of love, but you have an incredible sense of urgency, I think perhaps more than anyone that I have been involved with, a sense of how important this is. I want to talk a little bit about the fence. Like the gentleman from Georgia, I have been to the border before but not in the context of examining our border security. I am a strong proponent of the fence. I have been all along. What this trip opened my eyes to is the fact that the fence by itself is not enough. It is an impediment. One of the things that was impressed upon me on this trip was the sophistication of the cartels and the people across the border in breaching our fence and breaching our security. There is some pretty serious engineering going on here. When we were in San Diego, for instance, we saw where we have double-layer fencing. We have got the metal mat, landing mat fence on the Mexico side. We have got the high, the heavy gauge fence with the razor wire at the top on the U.S. side. They are using hardened blades for laser saws. It literally takes 1 minute to cut through there. All along that fence you saw where it was patched and what the border patrol calls doggy doors. They cut it out in three places, push it open, and they are through. The interesting thing is there, you have got 3 million people in Tijuana on the Mexico side, and you have got 3 million in San Diego. Almost the minute they are through, they are assimilated. But the thing that is going on there is the cooperation between local law enforcement, the Coast Guard, the Border Patrol, and how diligent they are to be there immediately once that line is breached to interdict that. They have been so effective at it that they are now pushing these folks offshore. They are using the panga boats now, and the Coast Guard, working with the Border Patrol and local law enforcement, have been so good at interdicting that they are forcing them up the coast of California. That is not the case in Arizona. What people need to understand is that just building the fence and pulling back and thinking that is going to stop them--I don't care how high we build it, how wide we build it, how many layers we have; if we don't have people in forward operating positions to interdict these people when they are staging to come across, we are not going to stop them. The picture that you are showing there next to you is the fence in Arizona, and the attention was drawn to where they had cut through the mesh there. That is not the thing that got my attention. If you will notice there, those are 6-inch I-beams supported by 6- inch channel. That is quarter-inch carbon steel. That is all along that border. They came along there, with these hardened blades, laser saws, cut through the I-beam, cut through the channel, folded it over, ramped over, and drove trucks over it. Now, this was not reported in the national media. I am not sure that there was any discussion about it from this administration. It was the local media that picked up on it. The ranchers know about this. But I think--and you can correct me if I am wrong--but I think they said there have been 47 vehicles that crossed over that. These are pickup trucks loaded with drugs and other items, contraband, whether it is guns or drugs or human trafficking. But that is the issue.

Mr. PALMER. Well, think about the staging that had to take place for that, that a vehicle that heavy, to be able to cross that fence, obviously--and the interesting thing is they used our own I-beam and channel to support the ramps that would bear that weight for that truck to get over it. This is not a static situation. Just building the fence is not enough. We have got to have the aerial surveillance, the unmanned aircraft, the aerostats. Looking into Mexico and seeing the staging that takes place for an operation like that to take place--you have been in the military, you understand this--that if you are going to--it literally looked like a military operation where they cut this down and ramped over it and drove over it. If we are looking into Mexico and see that, we need people in forward operating bases that can react immediately, not 20 minutes later, not 30 minutes later, because they are already over and gone. So this has got to be a combination of things. I am fine with the fence. We can build the fence as high and wide and as long as we want to, but we have got to be able to interdict. We have got to be able to see them staging, because they are not carrying ramping material on their backs for 3 or 4 miles to the fence. This happened fairly close to the fence, and we should have been able to see that and stop it. The other issue is the morale, and the fact that we don't--that we are not doing anything about catch and release has really hurt the morale, I think, with our law enforcement and with our Border Patrol. And it definitely has hurt the morale of the ranchers. My heart really goes out to those guys. They have been there through many generations. They have put in their blood, sweat, and tears in this. And it is not just that they love their ranch. They love their country, and it was very evident in what they had to say. I think it is incumbent upon us, as Members of Congress, to do our duty to protect the border. And the other thing, again, going back to the morale, it is different in San Diego, it is different in Arizona, it is different in Texas. What we need to do--and I am very, very grateful for the work that is being done to bring alongside this bill an enforcement bill. We have got to do this, I think, in a way that makes sense to the American people. Build the fence, secure the border, but have the right enforcement that goes along with this, that makes the work that our Border Patrol is doing worthwhile. When they catch the bad guys they need to be able to--there ought to be some consequences for it. Earlier, Mr. Perry from Pennsylvania made this point about, when are you forward-deployed in a combat zone, you secure your perimeter. There are consequences if you cross that perimeter a little more lethal than they would be here, but, in all honesty, we have got to do these things together. I applaud you for the work you are doing. It is extremely important, and I look forward to working with you on this.

Mr. PALMER. If the gentlelady would yield, I would like to add one other thing to that. This bill would allow access through Federal lands, and it has created a huge impediment for Border Patrol in the interdiction of people like this, whether they are coming across on foot or coming across in vehicles, if our Border Patrol do not have access to roads through Federal land. So that is another very important component of this bill. And then, last thing. Down in Texas we have got this Caruso cane on the banks of the river that basically is a natural hiding place for people who are crossing the river. We have got to allow our Border Patrol to take whatever measures are necessary to eliminate those type of natural hiding places and barriers to interdiction. So all of this is extremely important. I am glad you put that picture up because I don't think people fully appreciate, when you talk about people bringing drugs across the border, the massive amounts that can cross just on the backs of individuals.

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 596, a bill that would fully repeal the Affordable Care Act offered by Mr. Byrne of Alabama. Right now, Americans are being forced to buy a government product or pay a penalty. The Constitution mandates freedom, not the purchase of health insurance or any other product. We all remember this promise: ``If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.'' In 2013, a reported 4.7 million people in 32 States lost their health insurance when their plans were canceled. That is just the beginning. The Congressional Budget Office projects that 7 million more Americans will lose their health-sponsored coverage in 2016. Americans were promised that with ObamaCare their premiums would be lower. Instead, premiums have skyrocketed. Some groups have seen their premiums increase by 78 percent. At the same time, household incomes have gone down. Today, 4 years after the passage of ObamaCare, there are still more than 41 million people without health coverage. There are millions of people out of full-time work and millions more forced into part-time jobs. ObamaCare must be repealed and replaced. Americans should be allowed to buy the health insurance they want and need. We need market competition between health insurance providers, and people should be able to buy their health insurance across State lines. This would result in more choices for plans and at lower costs. We need portability so that when a person changes or loses a job, they don't lose their health insurance. We need innovative reforms for Medicaid and reforms that create incentives for controlling costs, promoting healthier lifestyle choices, and reforms that treat people with dignity. H.R. 596 starts the process of reforming our health care system by repealing ObamaCare. This is the first step toward true affordable health care that puts people back in charge of their health care choices.

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, President Obama has created a constitutional crisis by taking action that in his own words ``changes the law.'' That power is not vested in the President. It is vested in Congress, along with the power of the purse, as has been mentioned, to take action when the executive branch overreaches. This isn't about immigration policy. It is about defending and upholding the Constitution. In that regard, this amendment defunds the President's actions, and I am proud to support it.

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. ``But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.''