On the recordJuly 8, 2015
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. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer). The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Source
govinfo.gov




