On the recordNovember 2, 2023
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. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer). The amendment was agreed to. Amendment No. 123 Offered by Mr. Perry The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 123 printed in part A of House Report 118-261.





