On the recordJuly 13, 2016
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would not hinder the EPA's ability to enforce the laws on the books. This amendment only limits their ability to employ armed personnel. The EPA will still be able to investigate and prosecute environmental crimes. They will simply have to rely on local law enforcement--or on Federal law enforcement when Federal law enforcement would be appropriate--and when there is a need for armed protection. They could, again, rely on local law enforcement or on Federal law enforcement when the need applies. If the EPA believes that it needs armed protection, we should have a full disclosure of all of the EPA's criminal enforcement assets and a public debate about the need for the arms and equipment being used by the EPA. When we are talking about 75-millimeter ammunition, we are basically talking about an anti-tank round. When we are talking about 125-millimeter, we are talking about a tank round. They have amphibious assault vehicles, and they have other equipment that really makes them look like a military operation. It is also an enormous amount of money that has been invested here. I would be happy--and I really appreciate the gentleman's desire--to have a discussion about this, and I look forward to having that discussion. I agree that we want to make sure that the people who work for our Federal agencies are protected, especially when they are involved in investigations in an enforcement capacity.…





