Gary Palmer

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Madam Speaker, I was absent from the House and missed votes on 12/2/20 through 12/4/20 while recovering from COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 228; NAY on Roll Call No. 230; NAY on Roll Call No. 231; NAY on Roll Call No. 232; NAY on Roll Call No. 233; YEA on Roll Call No. 234; and NAY on Roll Call No. 235.

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) for hosting this special hour to talk about the Bible. Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 419th anniversary of the King James Version of the Bible. In 1604, King James I commissioned 54 scholars from Oxford and Cambridge Universities to produce one uniform translation of the Bible that all denominations could accept. It is unlikely that there has ever been another group of translators whose collective expertise in Biblical languages was equal to this group. Benson Bobrick, who wrote a book called ``Wide as the Waters,'' said, because of the people's desire to read the Bible, the English translation, known as the Authorized Version in Great Britain, helped Great Britain become the most literate nation in the world. In terms of the language of the King James Version, about 90 percent are Anglo- Saxon words with a vocabulary of only about 8,000 words for the entire translation. It was the first major work of English prose based primarily on Anglo-Saxon words instead of Latin. The King James translation established the prose style for English and American literature and became the foundation of modern English language giving us words and phrases that are common parts of our language today. In his ``History of England,'' Thomas Macaulay said that `` . . . if everything else in our language should perish, it would alone suffice to show the whole extent of its beauty and power.'' Bobrick wrote: ``Its subsequent impact on English, and American, literature might be traced in a thousand ways--in the work of religious writers like Milton and Bunyan, or their more secular brethren like D.H. Lawrence, Walt Whitman, and Defoe. Without the King James Version, it has been said, `there would be no `Paradise Lost,' no `Pilgrim's Progress' . . . no Gettysburg Address.' '' As Britain's literacy rate increased, it fostered a spirit of inquiry which led to people reading books and tracts that transformed the laws and government of Great Britain and ultimately laid the foundation for American political thought, and our Founders' ideas about individual liberty and constitutional government. Including the 1611 edition, there were four other editions of the King James Bible, which were published in 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769; the last is the version that is most commonly cited today. ``Next to the Bible itself,'' Bobrick wrote, ``the English Bible was, and is, the most influential book ever published.'' According to Vanderbilt University Press, the King James Version is the best-selling book of all time, with more than 5 billion copies sold, and it is the most frequently quoted book ever written. Russell Kirk concluded that it was the book that was to exert a stronger influence than any other in America. He wrote: ``Read from American pulpits and in the great majority of American households during colonial times, the Authorized Version shaped the style, informed the intellect, affected the laws, and decreed the morals of the North American colonies.'' P. Marion Simms wrote: ``No nation in all history was ever founded by people so dominated by the Bible as America.'' In fact, every American President except Franklin Pierce has been sworn in with their hands placed on the English Bible. Even though it was published after the Jamestown Colony was established, the King James Bible was the book that had the greatest impact on the American culture. ``The English did not really drive away the American colonists, nor were they driven,'' said G.K. Chesterton. ``The Americans were led on by a light that went before.'' The light was the Biblical light that the English Bible had given them: the idea of the equality of man. It was the idea of the sacred and equal importance of every man, as made in the image and likeness of God. One of the earliest copies of the King James Version Bible can be seen at the Museum of the Bible. I encourage everyone to visit this great American museum. Mr. Speaker, I thank, again, Mr. Lamborn, for this great opportunity.

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 8265 to extend the Paycheck Protection Program to keep millions of employees on the payroll of America's small businesses.

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) for holding this discussion about forest management. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because ``California's forests suffer from neglect and mismanagement, resulting in overcrowding that leaves them susceptible to disease, insects and wildfire.'' These are not my words. They are the words of the Little Hoover Commission, an independent State oversight agency in California. In their 2018 report entitled ``Fire on the Mountain,'' the Little Hoover Commission called for a transformational change in California forest management practices after ``A century of mismanaging Sierra Nevada forests has bought an unprecedented environmental catastrophe that impacts all Californians.'' That is a direct quote from the report. California's own Legislative Analyst's Office agreed and found that limitations on timber harvests and emphasis on fire suppression and an increasing number of environmental permitting requirements have led to unhealthily dense forests. Thankfully, both groups recognize that commonsense forest management practices could not only help prevent wildfires, but also reduce carbon emissions. Properly managed and healthy forests are more resilient and sequester more carbon than overgrown forests. Simple recommendations like shifting from fire suppression to using fire as a tool and setting up long-term forest management strategies are just a couple of the low-cost solutions that can help us achieve healthier forests. Unlike policies such as the Green New Deal, these practices would actually help address wildfires and would not cost trillions of dollars to implement. Furthermore, these actions can all be taken today, and they fall in line with some of the things that my Republican colleagues and I have been suggesting on the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis: that if we take action to mitigate and adapt to the climate change that we know is going to occur, we could avoid some of the catastrophes that we are seeing play out in California right now and in other places in the West. If you care about protecting our citizens from wildfires and reducing carbon emissions, then you should support responsible forest management. Instead of wasting time on unrealistic solutions, we should take serious action to prevent unnecessary wildfires and improve the carbon sequestration potential of our forests.

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, we are here today because my Democratic colleagues have created a conspiratorial crisis out of thin air in another attempt to dupe Americans with an election hoax. Only this time, instead of Russia, it is the United States Postal Service. Democrats are intentionally misleading people to believe that the operational changes at the Postal Service, including the removal of mailboxes and antiquated processing equipment, just started. That is a lie. Nonetheless, Postal Service officials have confirmed that these operational changes, some of which were agreed to by Democrat Members, have already been halted until after the election. In regard to the delay and delivery of mail over the last few weeks, the national number cited may well reflect delays in cities that have been under siege by anarchists. I will direct my colleagues and the American people's attention to these photos of the burned-out post office in Minneapolis. There is no way to know how many letters to loved ones were lost, or birthday cards or gifts or family heirlooms or that decoder ring that that kid had been waiting for were destroyed and will never be delivered. I am certain because of the lawlessness that the Democrats are dangerously silent about, the delivery of mail in Portland, Seattle, Chicago, New York, and Minneapolis, and other cities have been delayed. You want to talk defunding? Instead of Democrat mayors defunding the police, I would submit that we need to make sure that law enforcement in every American city is well funded so that they can protect not just the post office facilities that handle our mail, but also the people who deliver our mail so that those cards, letters, gifts, and election ballots can be delivered. Instead of pushing a conspiracy farce, we should be here making sure that law enforcement has the resources needed to protect the property and lives of American families in these cities that are under siege. That will help make sure the mail is delivered on time, and people will feel safe in getting it from the mailbox or the post office. In that regard, the silence of the Democrats in this Chamber is deadly.

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Madam Speaker, I was absent from the House and missed votes on 7/20/20 and 7/21/20 because I was in quarantine after potential exposure to someone with COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 139; NAY on Roll Call No. 140; NAY on Roll Call No. 141; NAY on Roll Call No. 142; NAY on Roll Call No. 143; NAY on Roll Call No. 144; NAY on Roll Call No. 145; NAY on Roll Call No. 146; NAY on Roll Call No. 147; NAY on Roll Call No. 148; NAY on Roll Call No. 149; NAY on Roll Call No. 150; YEA on Roll Call No. 151; and NAY on Roll Call No. 152.

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding. Because the committee has long been known for bipartisan cooperation, when I first came on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I was actually optimistic that we could work together to get a good bill to the full House. How naive of me to think that my Democrat colleagues would put aside their radical agenda to work with Republican Members to pass a sensible and affordable surface transportation bill. I can hardly overstate my disappointment that, from the very beginning, we were completely shut out of the process. I had hoped that the partisan nature of this surface transportation reauthorization would end after the bill was marked up in committee. Clearly, that was wishful thinking. While the entire transportation reauthorization process has been abused, it has served at least one good purpose in that it has put on full display the extreme ideas of my Democrat colleagues and just how destructive to the committee process they have become. Apparently, it wasn't enough to ram through a bill drafted without any input from Republican Members, which increased spending by 62 percent while our Nation is drowning in debt by adding a trillion dollars in miscellaneous spending to the proposal that already wasn't serious to begin with. My guess is that this is another Democrat bill that would have to be passed to find out exactly what is in it and what it will really cost American households. The real tragedy in all of this is that it represents a missed opportunity to work in a bipartisan fashion to solve the problems that we all recognize exist. Instead of spending time working to minimize delays, streamline the environmental permitting process, and fund projects with a clear Federal nexus, my Democrat colleagues have brought to the floor a wish list of Green New Deal proposals. Some of my colleagues who have been on this committee much longer than me tell me that they have never opposed a highway bill. It is a shame that they will no longer be able to say that solely because of the majority's failure to cooperate on this bill in a bipartisan fashion. We were eager to engage in a legitimate committee process to consider a responsible proposal to reauthorize our surface transportation programs. Unfortunately, as I said before, this has been a fraud from the start. I guess I could say at least they didn't promise: If you like your car, you can keep driving it.

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this bill because it would result in more crime and fewer people willing to serve in law enforcement. This bill lowers the standard for mens rea and basically eliminates qualified immunity for law enforcement officers, so, in the course of doing their job, an officer could go to prison for unintentionally breaking the law. Who wants to serve in a job where they are attacked, underpaid, overworked, and, under this bill, possibly charged as a criminal? Without qualification, what happened to George Floyd was horrific, and those involved deserve the full punishment under the law. Mr. Floyd's death was a brutal and callous assault that has undermined the public trust of law enforcement officers that we depend on to keep our communities safe. Notwithstanding, we cannot undermine the entire law enforcement community because of it. Every group has bad actors. Congress is not without examples of such. But we can't continue to paint all law enforcement officers as villains. Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the brave men and women who keep our communities, families, and this very Capitol safe. They take an oath to run towards danger when everyone runs away. In fact, two officers, David Bailey and Crystal Griner did just that when they kept my colleagues and me from being killed on the baseball field 3 years ago. I am convinced that several of my colleagues and I would have been killed or grievously wounded, as was Steve Scalise, were it not for the courage and dedication to duty of Officers Bailey and Griner. They are heroes, and I stand with them, not with these lawless vandals who have occupied some of our cities, who are pressuring my colleagues across the aisle to, if not eliminate our police departments, make them ineffective. Every day, somewhere in our Nation, police officers put their lives on the line and far too many of them lose their lives or suffer serious injuries as they faithfully and honorably do their jobs in service to their communities. I will not support any effort to make their jobs more dangerous while also leaving our communities vulnerable to the lawless acts and senseless violence that we are witnessing across our Nation today. Mr. Speaker, in regard to the majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, I appreciate the fact that he respectfully referenced Senator Tim Scott's bill in the Senate. I wish that the Speaker of this House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, had made a similar respectful response to that bill, as I wish Senator Dick Durbin had made a respectful response to that bill. The majority leader called on us to work with our colleagues across the aisle on this legislation. Had he been serious about that, there would have been a discussion before this bill ever came to the floor. But there wasn't one. Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from North Dakota has pointed out, there will be no amendments from the Republicans that substantially improve this bill, except that there aren't any on the Senate side either. So it is disingenuous to say that the Republicans are not interested in pursuing justice through sensible law enforcement. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill because it constitutes a threat to our national security. On March 26, the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis reported that our debt-to-GDP was already at 106.8 percent. Since that time, Congress added over $2 trillion. If this $3 trillion left-wing dream-come-true bill were to become law, it would likely move our debt-to-GDP at close to 120 percent by the end of this fiscal year. Debt levels of this magnitude are not sustainable. Debt levels of this magnitude will be a threat to Social Security and Medicare. Debt levels of this magnitude will reduce household income. And debt levels of this magnitude threaten our national security. Once upon a time, there was bipartisan agreement about this. Former Secretaries of Defense across multiple administrations all warned that our debt will compromise our national security capabilities. It is foolhardy to ignore these warnings that the single biggest threat to our national security is our national debt. America has enemies, and despite all the allusions of some, China is foremost among them. If this bill were to become law, it would undermine our ability to maintain our military superiority over China.

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, if this bill were to become law, it would undermine our ability to maintain our military superiority over China. In that regard, if Xi Jinping had a vote in this Chamber, he would be an enthusiastic ``yes.'' Thank God he does not. But we do. I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this usurpation of the rights and responsibilities of the members of Congress. And I emphasize the responsibilities of every member of Congress to do the job they were elected to do. I agree with my colleague from Arkansas Mr. Westerman. If you are not able to do the job you should consider stepping aside and letting someone else do the job. No one in this House is indispensable . . . no one. One of my Democrat colleagues referred to this resolution as our rule, there is not one Republican in support of this resolution . . . it is your rule, not our rule. I have heard multiple citations of history. Here is one I would like to cite. Caesar Rodney was one of the three delegates from Delaware to the Continental Congress. Despite suffering from facial cancer and asthma, Rodney rode 80 miles through a severe storm to cast his vote for Independence. He did not ask one of his Delaware colleagues to be his proxy. Despite his condition, he rode all night to cast his vote. I stand in the spirit of Rodney Caesar and all others before us who valued upholding their responsibilities above their own self-interest and well-being, to call on all members of good faith who value this institution to vote `No' on this resolution.

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory and incredible accomplishments of Katherine Johnson, a brilliant mathematician whose trailblazing work was instrumental in America's space exploration. Ms. Johnson passed away earlier this week at the age of 101 leaving behind a legacy not only of genius and dedication, but also of vitally important advancement in STEM fields for women and African Americans. Ms. Johnson's affinity for numbers was evident from an early age. She graduated from high school early and went on to study math and French at West Virginia State College. Later, she became the first African American woman to attend graduate school at West Virginia University. In 1953, Katherine Johnson accepted her first computing job with the agency that would become NASA. Despite intense discrimination throughout her years at NASA, she remained committed to advancing America's space program and broke barriers where she could. Eventually, she hand-calculated the flight path for America's first crewed space mission in 1961 and also helped calculate the trajectory for the famed Moon landing. When astronaut John Glenn prepared for his orbit around the Earth in 1962, he asked for Johnson to verify the calculations in NASA's new computer tracking system. He said: ``If she says the computer is right, I will take it.'' The impact of Katherine Johnson's groundbreaking work in math and science can hardly be overstated. American space exploration reached many of its milestones when it did due to her genius and commitment. Her perseverance also opened doors for women and African Americans in work fields previously closed to them. I stand with my colleagues in the House and countless Americans in gratitude to Ms. Johnson's hard work and pioneering spirit that have undoubtedly made America a better place.

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Madam Speaker, I rise to respond to the assertion of the Majority Leader that the act of destroying the copy of President Trump's State of the Union address that the President--as required by the Constitution--presented to Speaker Pelosi was speech protected under the 1st Amendment. The Majority Leader should be reminded that not all speech that is protected under the 1st Amendment is allowable in the House chamber under the Rules of the House. Moreover, the act of destroying the official House copy of President Trump's State of the Union address in of itself is a violation of what is and should be expected for the conduct of every member of the House. The premeditated and wanton disregard of the rules governing decorum that we all commit to abide by diminishes the civility and undermines the order that is essential to the functioning of the House as a deliberative body and that is expected of every member of the House of Representatives including and especially the Speaker of the House. I would add that if such conduct is ignored and not addressed by the leadership of both Parties our ability to govern will be seriously compromised.

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Madam Speaker, I rise to note, in regard to the assertion of the majority leader that the act of destroying the House copy of President Trump's State of the Union speech was speech protected under the First Amendment, I rise to assert that not all speech protected under the First Amendment is allowable under the rules of the House. Moreover, the act of destroying the House's copy of the State of the Union Address diminishes the decorum that is critical to maintaining the civility that is expected of every Member, including and especially the Speaker.

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the rule to make in order the Cole-McCarthy amendment that would ensure the President can protect the United States and our ally, Israel.

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the impeachment of President Trump. Today is a day that diminishes the reputation and stature of the United States House of Representatives, a day I never dreamed I would see. Today, my Democratic colleagues seek to overturn an election by forcing a vote that will forever be a stain on this Congress. They are not just voting to impeach President Trump; my colleagues are voting to impeach the judgment of every person who voted for him and the process by which we elect a President and by which we will govern our Nation. My Democratic colleagues claim the Russians influenced the outcome of the 2016 election, but based on their corrupt impeachment proceedings, it appears my colleagues have been influenced by how Russia conducts political trials: no real evidence, no real crime, no due process, and no justice. The Democrats have failed to show any legitimate justification for the impeachment of President Trump. When they could not find real evidence, they made it up and called it a parity. They conducted most of the hearings in secret. They instructed witnesses not to answer Republican Members' questions, and they denied Republicans the right to call witnesses, making it absolutely clear their objective was, from the beginning, pathetically political. We all understand that elections have consequences. To all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, this day will surely have consequences, as well, as we descend into more disrespect, distrust, and even contempt that will eventually be destructive of this Chamber and, I fear, eventually, our Republic. I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on impeachment.

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chair, for the record, on the Crist amendment No. 12, rollcall No. 662 I intended to vote ``nay.'' I mistakenly voted ``yea.'' Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Panetta

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves), the ranking member, and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows) for their work on the issue, and Chairman DeFazio for his support. The General Services Administration is required to submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works prospectuses that contain information on proposed public projects for committee consideration. In recent years, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, as has been mentioned, has posted this information about these projects on its website to provide access to the public and private entities. While the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has become a resource for the public, and even for Federal agencies, this bill, the Transparency in Federal Buildings Projects Act, would require the GSA to make publicly available on its website all prospectuses and associated information, pursuant to the Public Buildings Act. This sensible reform will ensure that taxpayers have more information about how their hard-earned dollars are being spent and managed. The bill would strengthen transparency and accountability in Federal construction, renovation, and leasing projects, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Madam Speaker, calling this a constitutional impeachment process is a farce and a gross misrepresentation of what is taking place. The entire process has flown in the face of precedent, procedure, and decency, with no regard whatsoever for the good of the country. It is politics at perhaps the worst we have seen in our Nation's history. The Democrats started their effort to depose President Trump even before he took office, starting with the Russia collusion hoax. Witness interviews are being conducted behind closed doors while Members of Congress, who have the responsibility to vote on the testimony of these witnesses, are shut out. The chairman of the Intelligence Committee is having secret phone calls, talking with alleged whistleblowers, and withholding information from Members of Congress and the public that is vital to this inquiry. This is shameful. This is really a conspiracy to remove a duly elected President. The Democrat majority is engaged in an effort to conduct a trial with a predetermined outcome to remove President Trump from office using tactics unbecoming and unfitting the Republic we serve and this House. This is not a legitimate inquiry; it is a coup attempt. It is time to stop this charade.

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, particularly in regard to the fact that I am speaking in opposition. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition. This bill would authorize the appropriation of $100 million, annually, for the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act. While this may sound like a worthy goal, the devil is always in the details. Although the EPA touts the program as a way to achieve cost-effective emissions, the reality is much different. 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 million for a new engine and generators for a 1950s locomotive in Pennsylvania. The President's budget only requests $10 million for this program, yet this bill would authorize 10 times that amount. We simply cannot continue asking taxpayers to fund a program that wastes their money on frivolous projects. This program was intended to be a short-term effort to assist States and local government in meeting diesel emissions standards but has joined a long list of temporary government programs for which there is no end in sight. 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 EPA. Surely, we can make due with one less. With a national debt exceeding $22 trillion and growing every day, we cannot afford to give additional resources to a program that clearly duplicates, at least in part, 13 other programs and has a marginal impact, at best. The authorization for this program expired in 2016, and it should not be resurrected. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

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

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted Nay on Roll Call No. 439.

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor Special Agent Michael Williams for his 32 years of dedicated service to Alabama as a member of the United States Secret Service. He concludes his distinguished career as the Special Agent in Charge of the U.S. Secret Service Birmingham Field Office, where he has had executive oversight over operations in Alabama and Mississippi since 2016. Special Agent Williams is a native of Birmingham and a graduate of the University of Alabama at Birmingham. He joined the Secret Service in 1985 and over the span of his career has been recognized for investigative excellence, including receiving the Outstanding Law Enforcement Officer of the Year Award. In 1996, he was assigned to the Presidential Protective Division in Washington, D.C. where he protected President William J. Clinton and President George W. Bush. He was promoted to a Supervisory Special Agent assigned to the Protective Intelligence Division in 2001. Special Agent Williams was able to come home in 2003, when he was promoted to Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the Birmingham Field Office. He returned to Washington, D.C. in 2005 where he served as the Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the Presidential Protective Division. In October 2008, he was promoted to the Special Agent in Charge of the Columbia, South Carolina Field Office. In January 2013, he once again found his way to D.C. when he was promoted into the Senior Executive Service where he served as the Special Agent in Charge of the Protective Intelligence and Assessment Division. In this capacity, he had executive oversight for protective intelligence, threat assessments and the Secret Service behavioral analysis program. In 2015, he was promoted to the position of Deputy Assistant Director in the Secret Service Office of Protective Operations. He ensured that the President, the First Lady and all protected persons, places and events received the highest level of security based on threats and vulnerabilities. Throughout his career, Special Agent Williams has also served the community volunteering for a number of organizations, including the Big Brother program, Boys/Girls Club and Crime Stoppers of Metro Alabama. He is a member of Kappa Alpha Phi fraternity and received UAB's Outstanding Alumni Award. He is married to Angela Bryant-Williams and they have a son, Bryant Michael Williams. I am grateful to Special Agent Williams for his 32 years of service to this country and wish him well in retirement.

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois, who is also a good friend, for the work he is doing on this, trying to bring some transparency to what is really going on here. There are numerous reasons that mandating paper ballots isn't workable. They are susceptible to fraud; they are inefficient; and they are antiquated. I have seen, over the years, where the joke was ``one man, one vote,'' where it was ``one suitcase, one vote,'' with people bringing in paper ballots. We have seen a situation around the country now where that is still a bit of a problem. For argument's sake, though, let's just say that paper ballots were foolproof and didn't come with their own set of problems or security concerns. I would still be concerned about the impact this bill would have on the majority of our States. The mandate, in and of itself, is troubling. Twenty-nine out of our 50 States, plus the District of Columbia, would have to completely revamp their current election systems. This is both costly and time- intensive. There is nearly zero chance this can be adopted by the 2020 elections. The funding in the bill makes it clear that they realize this is not enough money to pay for this and, if it is not, it would be on a pro rata share. That means it is an unfunded mandate in violation of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act. It is easy for Federal lawmakers here in D.C. to gloss over the impact this Federal mandate would have, but the numbers don't lie. Only 18 States currently use a paper-only voting system, as the bill would mandate. Not to mention, this bill would also impact those 18 States, including my home State of Alabama. Just a few days ago, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology held a hearing on ``Election Security: Voting Technology Vulnerabilities,'' where Oklahoma's Secretary of the State Election Board Ziriax pointed out that this bill would require the use of recycled paper, which would be impossible to use with Oklahoma's current paper ballot system because the fibers found in recycled paper would cause repeated false readings. While this may seem like a small or silly detail, this is just one example of the great impact this bill will have on all States, with many considerations that have yet to be vetted properly.

Mr. PALMER. My colleagues on the other side continue to offer radical and unworkable policies to revamp our election system. Security risks do exist within our ballot boxes, but this bill is not the answer. This bill will just add to the existing risks, and I cannot support it. I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.