Department of the interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment limits the funding of the EPA's Diesel Emissions Reduction Program. The Diesel Emissions Reduction Program is part of the National Clean Diesel Campaign. This grant program was created in 2005 as a short-term effort to assist States and local government to meet new diesel emissions standards for older diesel engines.

According to the Obama administration, the overall impact of the program has been marginal. Currently, there are 14 grant and loan programs at the Department of Energy, the Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, plus three tax activities that have as a goal reducing mobile source diesel emissions. In addition, each of the 14 programs, according to the GAO, overlaps with at least one other program in the specific activities they fund, the program goals, or the eligible recipients of funding.

GAO also identified several instances of duplication where more than one program provided grant funding to the same recipient for the same type of activities. One example identified by GAO showed a nonprofit organization received $1.1 million from EPA's Diesel Emissions Reduction Act program to install emission reduction and idle reduction technologies on 1,700 trucks, as well as $5.6 million from a State infrastructure bank established under DOT's program to equip trucks and truck fleets with emissions control and idle reduction devices--essentially the same thing.

Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government has become so large, it is impossible to grasp its true size and scope to pay for its cost. With the country facing unprecedented levels of debt, taxpayers expect the Federal Government to run more efficiently, guarding against careless waste of precious resources. It is essential that Congress, the administration, and Federal agencies do everything in their power to cut spending, reduce duplication, and rein in waste, fraud, and abuse. My amendment does just that, and it would have an annual savings of $50 million.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished colleague from California for his remarks, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, since 1984, the EPA has lowered the amount of pollutants from diesel engines by more than 98 percent. Since 1980, despite the fact that the gross domestic product has grown by over 460 percent, vehicle miles have increased by 94 percent, the population has grown 38 percent, energy production 32 percent, emissions have gone down 50 percent. In regard to the impact of these programs, you have 14 programs that the GAO has identified as overlapping. It will do little harm to the overall effort for air quality to eliminate one program that is clearly a duplication in several instances identified by the GAO.

In addition, Mr. Chairman, in regard to air quality, while air quality has improved dramatically--emissions are down 50 percent since 1980--respiratory illnesses such as asthma have gone up, and that is largely a byproduct of income. So I would commend to you that we need to reduce the number of regulations, the cost of regulations, to allow more economic activity and provide better job opportunities for people, which will have a direct impact on their overall welfare, including their health.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to again point out that it was a study from the University of California, Los Angeles that pointed out that children from low-income households suffer disproportionately from asthma, and as we continue to overregulate our economy and reduce the economic opportunities for people, we are going to continue to see these high rates of respiratory illnesses.

My final point is that we are not eliminating this clean diesel program. We are eliminating one program out of 14.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source