Gary Palmer

Mr. PALMER

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

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 831) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 120 West Pike Street in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, as the ``Police Officer Scott Bashioum Post Office Building''.

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 831, introduced by the Senator from Pennsylvania, Pat Toomey. The bill would name the U.S. Post Office at 120 West Pike Street in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, in honor of Police Officer Scott Bashioum. Officer Bashioum served 29 years in the United States Air Force, retiring as a senior master sergeant. During his service in the Air Force, Officer Bashioum served in the Persian Gulf war, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and was part of the recovery effort in the aftermath of Hurricane Wilma. After retiring, Officer Bashioum became a police officer for the Canonsburg community. On November 10, 2016, he was shot and killed while responding to a domestic violence call. I thank Senator Toomey for introducing this bill to pay tribute to the life and sacrifice of Officer Bashioum. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3183) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 13683 James Madison Highway in Palmyra, Virginia, as the ``U.S. Navy Seaman Dakota Kyle Rigsby Post Office''.

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3183, introduced by the gentleman from Virginia, Representative Tom Garrett. H.R. 3183 names the post office at 13683 James Madison Highway in Palmyra, Virginia, after U.S. Navy Seaman Apprentice Dakota Kyle Rigsby. Seaman Rigsby tragically lost his life on June 17, 2017, as the result of a naval accident while serving on the USS Fitzgerald. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Garrett) to hear more about Seaman Rigsby's life and service.

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I have been very honored to join with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) and my other colleagues to not only honor those named, but their families and colleagues, as well, and let them know that these heroes, their loved ones, will not be forgotten. I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, Mr. Hultgren, for arranging this opportunity to honor Billy Graham. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow will we witness something that we have never seen before: the laying in honor of the body of an American who was not a government official, didn't lead a political movement, and wasn't a war hero or social movement hero. The Nation will mourn a man who was single-minded in his devotion to one thing, whose life and vocation centered on one thing and one thing only: proclaiming the saving grace of God through Jesus Christ. I hope we pay close attention to this. We will most likely never see it again. In Mark, Jesus tells his disciples to ``go into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature.'' Few people followed this instruction more faithfully than the Reverend Billy Graham and with as much success and impact. Billy Graham has been called America's Preacher. But the fact of the matter is that he was, for many decades, the most recognized and respected evangelical in the world. Reverend Graham preached the Gospel to more than 200 million people during his more than 400 crusades and rallies in more than 185 countries and territories. The impact of those reached through TV, radio, video, and the internet is unquantifiable. Reverend Graham did this sacrificially, giving up opportunities for other, much more lucrative opportunities that most people would have jumped at were they given the opportunity. Moreover, Reverend Graham estimated that he was gone from home for about 60 percent of his children's adolescence. Despite being a pseudo-single mom, his wife, Ruth, understood the importance of the sacrifice. She once said: ``I'd rather have a little of Bill than a lot of any other man.'' At a time when Christians are so often shunned and ridiculed, particularly those who have major followings, Billy Graham was almost universally regarded as a steady and well-respected voice. He appeared on Gallup's list of most admired men in America 60 times since 1955. That is every year since the research firm began asking the question. He counseled and covered in prayer every President, from Truman to Trump. Former President Clinton said: ``When he prays with you in the Oval Office or upstairs in the White House, you feel he's praying for you, not the President.'' That is the magnitude of this man: no matter how big or small you were, he cared about you, not your position. Titles and wealth and social status didn't matter to Reverend Graham. The only position of a person that mattered to him was their eternal position before God. Race did not matter either. Reverend Graham was courageous. When other church leaders remained silent, he was an outspoken advocate for racial equality, consistently stating: ``Christ belongs to all people.'' In 1951, he called for the Southern Baptist Convention to accept Black students at their colleges. At a 1953 crusade in Tennessee, he personally took down ropes segregating the audience. In 1957, during his crusade in New York, he invited Martin Luther King, Jr., to open one night with a prayer. Despite his actions, he later said he wished he would have done more to help Dr. King. In 1964, just months after the bombing at the 16th Street Baptist Church, Reverend Graham brought his crusade to Birmingham, Alabama. Before he agreed to come, Reverend Graham insisted that the audience be integrated. Over 30,000 people attended, making it, at the time, the largest integrated audience in the history of Birmingham. The next year, he spoke to an integrated audience in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, with University of Alabama President Frank Rose and head football coach Paul ``Bear'' Bryant with him on the stage. Mr. Speaker, I don't believe there is or will be anyone else in our lifetime who so clearly and effectively called people out of spiritual darkness into the light than Billy Graham. Untold millions were exposed to the saving message of the Gospel through his ministry. I mourn the void of moral and spiritual authority that, with his death, has been left in this world, but I rejoice in knowing that he is finally at home and at rest with God. As it is written about David in Acts 13:36, so it can be said of Billy Graham. He served God's purpose for his generation.

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, Article I, section 9 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. Despite this clear declaration of power, the Office of Management and Budget estimates that agencies collected over $513 billion in fines, fees, penalties, and other offsetting collections and receipts in fiscal year 2017. Allowing agencies to have slush funds outside of the normal appropriations process is a recipe for bad acting. The RSC budget calls for implementing the Agency Accountability Act, which directs that all fines, fees, and settlements go to the Treasury, making them subject to the normal appropriations process. This would end the agencies' ability to operate independently and outside of the oversight of Congress. More importantly, it would allow Congress to fully account for how much money the government actually collects and where that money is coming from. I am also pleased that the RSC budget does what is increasingly becoming an impossible task: it balances the budget, all while prioritizing defense spending to keep this country secure. This budget sets forth the bold ideas necessary to put the country back on a path of fiscal responsibility. The Congressional Budget Office reports that if we stay on the current irresponsible fiscal path we are on, by 2047, in 30 years, our debt to GDP will be 150 percent. Stated more simply, our debt will be 50 percent greater than our entire gross domestic product. We must put our Nation back on a path of fiscal responsibility, and the RSC budget does exactly that. As former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullin warned, our national debt is the greatest threat to our national security. By putting our Nation on a sensible fiscal path of balancing the budget, we reduce the extremely heavy burden that a bloated Federal Government places on America's working families, allowing them to prosper and making the government less intrusive in their lives. I would also like to add extemporaneously in regard to what we are doing on SNAP benefits. What we are doing is imposing work requirements on able-bodied adults with no children. I want to repeat: able-bodied adults with no children. I think most Americans would agree that if they are getting payments from the Federal Government, they ought to at least do some work.

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the hard work the Budget Committee has put forth to produce a budget that prioritizes our national defense and sets forth bold policy reforms that will get this country back on track to fiscal responsibility. Specifically, I am pleased to see that this budget commits to reducing the substantial amount of improper payments throughout the Federal Government. The Government Accountability Office estimates that there were $144 billion--I want to emphasize $144 billion--in improper payments in 2016 alone, and that is not even a complete estimate. In fact, 18 Federal programs did not report their improper payments, so the total is undoubtedly higher. To make matters worse, since 2013, the amount we have been incorrectly sending out has been trending upwards. Instead of reducing our fraudulent payments, the rate at which we pay them out has been increasing. Since 2003, there has been a total of $1.2 trillion in improper payments. Let me repeat, that is $1.2 trillion plus interest. Because we have been running deficits over that timeframe, we have literally had to borrow that money to send it to fraudsters and others who would not have received it. This is unacceptable. As you can see from this chart, this represents improper payments for 2016 alone. It is money borrowed that we pay interest on to send to people who are not supposed to get it. We are borrowing money and adding to our debt through improper payments. This budget, for the first time, sets forth a bold strategy for cutting these payments in half over the budget window, saving us $700 billion over our 10-year window. While I hope, in the near future, we can zero these payments out, I am thrilled to see that we are beginning to tackle a problem that is putting an additional strain on this country's fiscal problems. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this budget.

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Progressive Caucus' budget. In his farewell address, President Eisenhower said: ``We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.'' Instead of trying to put America on a sustainable financial path, the progressive budget seeks to mortgage even more of our grandchildren's and great grandchildren's future, frankly, by spending over $57 trillion over the next 10 years. With the national debt surpassing $20 trillion just last month, now is the time to rein in reckless government spending, not explode it. In addition to these spending increases, the Progressive Caucus is proposing nearly $9 trillion in tax increases over the next decade. These enormous tax increases do not come close to covering the cost of the irresponsible policies proposed. I want to repeat that. Enormous tax increases that don't come close to covering the cost of what they have proposed. As a result, the Progressive Caucus' budget raises the debt to over $27 trillion by 2027. In fact, by fiscal year 2027, our deficits would be near $1 trillion. Higher taxes and higher spending would stifle the American economy and put our debt on an expedited upward trajectory. It is time for us to make tough decisions when it comes to this country's budget. The decision to oppose the Progressive Caucus budget is not one of those tough decisions. This budget also makes no effort to curb waste, fraud, and abuse. Instead, it would expand bureaucratic programs by trillions of dollars without proposing any oversight measures. For example, it would spend $41 billion on ``free college'' promises, and $1 trillion on childcare and universal pre-K. Mr. Chairman, it reminds me of the shovel-ready programs that were part of the Obama package just a few years ago. We all had this expectation that this money would go to rebuild our infrastructure, and it turns out just a little over 3 percent of that money actually made it to infrastructure projects; somewhere in the range of $30 billion out of over $800 billion. That is what I see in the progressive budget. It continues the failed ObamaCare experiment, and even goes so far as to allow States to experiment with socialized medicine. It continues to encourage able-bodied adults without children not to seek work by providing them a government paycheck.

Mr. PALMER. It increases the pressure on Americans' pocketbooks by increasing the price at the pump and, really, at every level. It proposes Washington-centric solutions to problems that the States are better equipped to determine, such as the whole college issue. And it spends $500 billion on green energy and imposes a carbon tax. Mr. Chairman, we have a moral responsibility to spend taxpayer dollars wisely, and the Progressive Caucus fails to do this in its budget. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. PALMER

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

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, 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. This law prevents religious and pro-life advocacy organizations from making employment decisions consistent with their institutional mission. 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 be forced to embrace the beliefs of the 13 members of the D.C. Council. D.C. allows abortions until the moment of birth, but a number of organizations in D.C.--such as March for Life, Americans United for Life, and the Susan B. Anthony List--exist solely to protect the sanctity of 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 passed RHNDA, former D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray described it as ``legally problematic'' saying: `` . . . the bill raises serious concerns under the Constitution, and under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. . . . '' My amendment would restore religious freedom to employers inside the District of Columbia. Those who want to have an abortion 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. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

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

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, in spite of numerous requests--with all due respect to the gentlewoman from Colorado and the distinguished Delegate from the District of Columbia--in spite of numerous requests, no exemptions were included in the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act for either moral or religious objections. I think my colleague from Colorado just pointed that out, that they intended no exceptions. RHNDA, as enacted, has no religious exemption, and legislative history suggests it may have been passed specifically to target faith- based employers. Nobody should be forced to take a position one way or the other, or be able to hire them. By leaving this in place, it exposes employers to potential lawsuits. I would like to point out that, in regard to Congress' authority over this issue, Article I, section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution states that Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over the District. Mr. Chair, I take exception to my colleague's point that it is acceptable to infringe on the religious liberties of certain people who actually believe in protecting life. The Constitution does not provide for only a certain group to practice their religion, but everyone has a right to practice his or her religion. No government interest can overcome that constitutional right. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Graves).

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I want to remind people of what former Mayor Gray wrote in his letter: ``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.'' The Supreme Court in the Hosanna Tabor v. EEOC decision made it clear--this was a unanimous decision--that organizations are free to hire people who are like-minded and who support their views. In regard to federalism, the Constitution gives Congress the right to legislate over the District of Columbia. If D.C. won't respect the rights of its citizens, then it is Congress' duty to ensure the laws of D.C. comply with Federal law and the Constitution. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and vote ``yes,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, the Environmental Protection Agency spends as much as $50 million a 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 2015, the EPA spent an estimated $715 million for its criminal enforcement program. This money could have been better spent on such things as improvement of our water systems. These 200 special agents were equipped with guns and ammunition up to 30-millimeter, camouflage and other deceptive equipment, night vision, unmanned aircraft, and other military-style equipment. A 2015 report by Open the Books, noted that EPA spent $24,700 on ammunition between 75-millimeter and 125-millimeter, and $23,000 on ammunition over 125-millimeter. It is difficult for me to imagine that the EPA has a legitimate use for ammunition of that size. The EPA is just one of more than 70 Federal agencies that employ armed personnel, many of which most Americans would never associate with law enforcement. These include the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, the Federal Reserve Board, and the National Institutes of Health, among others. I think we need to take a step back and reevaluate whether arming the bureaucracy is the best way to ensure that our laws are enforced. Federal agencies should be able to demonstrate their need for armed personnel and, absent such a demonstration, should rely on local or State 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 militarization in our Federal agencies. Claim: While I appreciate my colleague's concerns about the militarization of federal agencies, this amendment reaches too far. Response: It is not my amendment, but the EPA that has reached too far. EPA is the poster child for government overreach, and they have clearly abused the police powers they've been granted. Claim: This amendment puts EPA employees at risk of bodily harm. They deserve to come home to their families at night. Response: I agree that every federal employee should be able to come home safe to their families and this amendment would not impact their ability to do so. EPA and any other federal agency that believes that their activities could result in a threat to their employees have the ability to coordinate armed protection with local or state or federal law enforcement. Claim: This amendment would give criminals a free pass to pollute our air and water and ignore the laws on the books. Response: My amendment would not hinder EPA's ability to enforce the laws on the books and no one wants to see our air and water polluted. However, we cannot ignore the facts that EPA's criminal enforcement division could be mistaken for a military operation at this point. I want to see our laws enforced, but I have serious doubts that it takes 200 heavily armed EPA agents to accomplish that goal. Claim: We should have a debate over EPA's need for armed agents but this is not the correct venue for that debate. The debate should take place in the authorizing committees. Response: That same argument could be applied to every limitation amendment offered to an appropriations bill, but that doesn't stop limitations from being offered and adopted. That said, I am happy to continue this debate should a bill reauthorizing these activities come up. We recently increased funding for the Capitol Police by $29.2 million which could be more than covered by the reduction I am seeking to EPA Criminal Enforcement. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's great work on the appropriations bill and have great respect for him, but I would like to respond to some of the comments. This is not a cut to the EPA's budget. This is a redirection of funds away from a militarized division of the EPA. There is no effort at all here to diminish the EPA's ability to carry out its core functions. If there is a problem where armed agents or armed personnel are involved, they need to rely on people who are trained to deal with such situations. Actually, I think this would allow the EPA to redirect its funds to make sure that our environment is protected. So with all due respect, I want to make sure that it is understood that this is not a cut to the EPA's budget. This is a redirection of resources and a demilitarization of a Federal agency that, frankly, I have seen in my own State of Alabama where they showed up at a city water system in full body armor, bulletproof vests, carrying AR15s--at a city water system. It was totally uncalled for. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this, and I reserve the balance of my time.