Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chair, the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, 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. The American people would likely be disturbed to hear that.

According to the nonprofit Open the Books, the EPA has spent millions of dollars over the years on antitank ammunition, amphibious assault craft, night vision equipment, unmanned aircraft, and other military equipment. It is difficult for me to imagine that the EPA has a legitimate use for antitank ammunition. To me, that sounds like we are arming a SEAL team. The difference is a SEAL team can explain why they need these things; the EPA cannot.

These agents have been involved in 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 long guns showed up to review paperwork at a family-owned mining operation.

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 on all of those going in and going out.

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.

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 and partner with local, State, or Federal law enforcement when there is a need for armed protection.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I am stunned to hear the response to this coming from the side that supports defunding the police. What we want to do is have proper law enforcement enforcing our laws and not weaponizing the entire Federal bureaucracy against the citizens of the United States.

I can't imagine why the EPA would need anti-tank ammunition to enforce the laws of the EPA. We have seen what this leads to in multiple examples, which I will not go into at this point. The critics' claims, though, that my amendment would put EPA personnel at risk of harm, that would be wrong.

My amendment does not prohibit the EPA from using funds to provide security for its personnel or property. It does not prohibit training of EPA security or law enforcement personnel, either.

My amendment would prohibit funding for the EPA's armed and militarized agents who have a history of intimidating Americans by conducting aggressive raids and begin to address the troubling trend of militarization of our Federal agencies.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source