Scott Perry

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, this amendment prohibits the use of funds to finalize, implement, or enforce the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's rule mandating automatic emergency braking systems on new commercial vehicles. Isn't that wonderful, another mandate? Making the world better, making America better, making us more free, making everything more affordable, except it is not. The IIJA, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, required the Department of Transportation to issue a mandate for heavy-duty trucks to be equipped with automatic emergency braking systems. It also required the DOT to consult with the commercial vehicle user community and address any existing deficiencies with automatic emergency braking systems before issuing its mandate. The issue is that DOT has failed to meet both requirements, or any requirement. There are real and legitimate concerns about false activations of the systems that remain unaddressed and must be dealt with before proceeding with any requirement. Moreover, an integrated safety system with an automatic emergency braking system can add up to $5,000 to the cost of a single truck. Oh, but it is always worth it. It is always worth it. We are going to be more safe if we have this stuff. Meanwhile, we can't get anybody to drive a truck anymore. That is why we are looking at automated trucks without drivers in them because we have depleted the truck driving industry. We have driven everybody out because they can't afford to get in or stay in. With fleets operating on exceedingly tight margins, this mandated cost increase presents a barrier to entry for new market participants. It will also likely result in extending the life of current vehicles, causing these operators to miss out on the safety improvements of newer trucks that they won't buy. I know it is counterintuitive, but when these rules are made, they never think about the additional cost that the truck owner or the person that wishes to buy a truck or replace a truck is going to have to incur. They just assume, well, they will just spend the extra $5,000. This is not where it ends. This is just one system. There are multiple systems on these new trucks and all new equipment. They just keep adding and adding. Well, I don't understand why the cost of everything goes up. I can't figure it out. If you are on the left you can never figure those things out. It is because of you and the things that you do. That is why. Moreover, this will likely result in an older truck fleet in the U.S., which is actually probably more dangerous because people are not going to replace trucks because they don't have the extra $5,000. I know you think all truck drivers are made of money, but they are not. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, my good friend from Illinois says that we ought to just go through the rulemaking process. However, as I told you, there are real and legitimate concerns that have not been addressed, and that is why you go through the rulemaking process. It is not just a perfunctory, well, we asked for your input, and we got it. Now we are just going to disregard it and do what we want to anyhow, which is exactly what the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is doing, which is why we cannot fund this. It is our government. The government serves us. It is not the other way around. It is just another example where we act like we are Oliver Twist begging for more gruel. The gruel is ours, Mr. Chairman, and we should not have to beg for it as the citizens of this country. This government belongs to us, not the other way around. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, the gentleman says that Federalism is good sometimes but not other times, and States' rights are important sometimes but not other times. Let me be clear: We are not talking about the transit lines themselves. This is transit-oriented development. Let me break it down for everybody here. There is a transit line running somewhere. There is not a lot of ridership on it, so we have to boost the ridership. What that means is that we are going to subsidize some developer to build housing or whatever other development adjacent to the line to hope that those people will then get on that transit line. That is what is happening here. You know what happens next. We subsidize the development. Then, the people who get into that development take their cars to wherever they are going and don't ride on the transit line. If you have to have transit lines, God bless you. That is awesome. If you want to ride them, God bless you. That is awesome. There is no reason whatsoever that this is a Federal requirement or a Federal nexus at all to build developments next to transit lines. If States and localities want to do that, if they want to subsidize them, God bless them, too. They should do that, but people in Pennsylvania shouldn't be supporting transit-related development in California any more than people in California should be supporting it in Illinois. That is no Federal nexus. If Illinois wants to do it, they should. If Pennsylvania wants to do it, they should. We shouldn't require every taxpayer in the country to pay for transit-oriented development to boost ridership on the lines that don't have any so that we can justify the lines and then build more lines without any ridership. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, this is an awesome idea. I am glad that the gentleman can walk 15 seconds outside his door and get on the train and, as he says, more quickly and safely get to his destination. That is great. That is good for him. If my colleague wants to pay for that, he should. If Illinois wants to pay for that, they should. I shouldn't have to pay for it. By the way, while my colleague is talking about quicker and safer, of course, there are no metrics to support any of that. I have no interest in riding mass transit. My daughters get on the bus every morning, and I remind them, as they are standing up there at the bus stop in the freezing cold waiting for the bus, that I hope they enjoy their mass transit. I hope they enjoy their public transportation because it is inefficient. It is not getting them there more quickly. Riding in America's cities on mass transit, my colleague said it is safer. It seems like crime is on the rise in every single city. It is not ``seeming so,'' it is so. It is not safe. It is not safe here in the Nation's Capital to ride on transit. It is not quicker. It is not safer. I am providing the same metrics to prove my point that you provided to prove yours, which are none. Mr. Chair, this is about federalism. This is about subsidies and boondoggles and things that we can't afford while we are $33 trillion in debt. If somebody wants to build, if some developer wants to build next to the transit line because they think it will help them sell their properties in their development more quickly, they should do that. Taxpayers shouldn't be involved. Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, my colleague says that we should respect the rulemaking process. Maybe some of my colleagues here in Washington don't understand, don't recognize, won't acknowledge that this government has gotten too big, and the rulemaking process is really meant to shut out voices across America. It is we here in Congress who should be making these rules, not unelected bureaucrats who have no accountability to the people that they impose these rules upon. It is we who should be doing this. By the way, there were some folks who came in, they said, We oppose your amendment. We want this emergency braking system on trucks. I said, Well, how about on your trucks? Oh, no, no, we don't want it on our trucks. We want it on their trucks. We want it on someone else's trucks. Everybody wants someone else to pay the freight until it comes to their doorstep, then they are not interested. Mr. Chairman, this government is too big. This is an example of it. I urge adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, this amendment prohibits the use of any funds in this act for so-called transit-oriented development. Contrary to the claims of proponents of such communities, they do not increase ridership on transit lines. Rather, they just ensure taxpayers subsidize development that would likely happen anyway. Moreover, like transit investment generally, they do not create economic growth. Instead, these communities just subsidize the growth that would likely have occurred naturally. This is a giveaway to developers in large urban areas, as most areas do not have the population density to support these communities. It does not address the more fundamental issue plaguing our Nation's transit systems than driving down ridership, which is the problem. Doing so will only result in wasted Federal resources that would be better directed toward core highway and bridge projects. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, we absolutely do need investments in passenger rail, but private companies won't do it because it loses money. Amtrak is happy to do it because it is not their money. It is our money. It is our taxpayers' money. They get up early in the morning while it is still dark out, pack their lunch, and head off to work so they can pay the taxes for an operation that lost $886 million in FY 2022--$886 million. You know who lost their job when they lost $886 million of the taxpayers' hard-earned money? Nobody. Nobody lost their job. It doesn't matter. What happens is we came in and we are asking for more money. We already talked about the billions they are already getting, and this is adding insult to injury for everybody who has to pay for it. It is awesome to have rails that go across the country. It is one of the founding principles of our country, opening the West. However, it wasn't the government that did it. It was entrepreneurs. It was people who speculated and risked their capital. Then the people who rode the trains paid for them. However, people who aren't riding the trains are paying for them, and they don't have any more money. Do I want to see them close? I certainly don't. I don't want to see these lines ended and these services ended, but if we keep going, $33 trillion, I don't know when the breaking point is, but everything is going to end at some point. We could learn a lesson, trim the waste, fix things that we can fix, so we can avoid everything stopping, but I guess we are going to head over the cliff. Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, this amendment reduces the funding level for the National Surface Transportation and Innovation Finance Bureau to the fiscal year 2022 level, saving $6.75 million. This office was created by the FAST Act solely to help entities apply for Federal subsidies for transportation projects. It has become so complicated, and there are so many different programs, that now we have to have an entity that navigates interested parties through it. In fiscal year 2022, this program was funded at $3.8 million. In this House bill, just 2 years later, it is funded at $10.55 million. Let's think about that. We are lending out so much money from the taxpayers that we need to use taxpayer dollars to create an office to assist people looking to take those loans. This office is supposed to streamline and improve the application process for DOT's credit assistance programs, according to the Department of Transportation website. These programs, which include TIFIA and RRIF credit assistance programs, have very favorable terms for the borrower. Unfortunately, they have unfavorable terms for the taxpayer. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, these programs, unfortunately, often finance projects that have little or no value to interstate commerce. This is the Federal Government. The Federal Government exists to do things that the State and local governments can't do, but yet the State and local governments can do these things. They just choose not to. I don't blame them. Why would they when the Federal Government will pay for them? I will give you some examples: It includes $606 million in TIFIA assistance to the Moynihan Train Hall project in New York City to relieve congestion at Penn Station. It includes $99 million in TIFIA assistance to the city of Bellevue, Washington, for 12 multimodal roadways to support the new Bel-Red neighborhood in the heart of the city. It is great for those cities. I am sure it is wonderful, but that project alone included 25,000 linear feet of sidewalk and 21,000 linear feet of dedicated and separate bike lanes, all within one city. They weren't crossing State lines. People in Pennsylvania are paying for the one in Washington, people in New Mexico, Florida. They are not there, though. They just get to pay for it. It also includes $908 million in TIFIA assistance to a regional rail project that only traverses through three counties in Texas. What region is that? I guess that is the Texas region, right? It is not the Southwest. I mean, it is technically, but this doesn't cross any State lines. There is no interstate nexus here. There is no reason for the Federal Government to be involved. I am sure these projects and many more funded by these programs are appreciated by the residents of these areas. I am absolutely certain of it. I am also sure that I am in the minority when I say there should be fewer of these programs to redistribute taxpayer-funded subsidies across the country. We simply can't afford them. We simply can't afford them. I know I am going to be a broken record, but we are going to hear the broken record of $33 trillion in debt and climbing every single day at exponential rates unseen before in history. At a bare minimum, instead of creating an increasing funding for an office to manage the web of bureaucracy of these subsidy programs, why don't we actually cut these programs, especially the duplicative ones? My colleague on the other side of the aisle says it exists to help them apply and successfully develop projects. I am sure it does. I am sure they develop the projects just to receive this money. That is why they do it, because this thing exists. Maybe the project wouldn't exist if it weren't for this first. He says it requires expertise. I am sure it does because it is complicated. It is so complicated that we have a bureau now just to navigate these things for grant recipients and would-be grant recipients and funding recipients. We can't afford this. We don't need this, and I urge adoption. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, let's be clear. The gentleman who spoke just before me that just rode the train in from New Jersey today should have no problem with this amendment because it does nothing to the Northeast Corridor. However, what it does do, it cuts the over $776 million in funding for the National Network of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation. I understand that the President has an affinity for passenger rail, especially Amtrak. Amtrak's 15-year vision released in 2021 mirrors that enthusiasm, plotting out an ambitious 39 new routes in the next 15 years. The problem is, it can't be said enough here in Washington, we are out of money. We are borrowing money to pay these bills. The behemoth IIJA passed just a few years ago contained billions in funding directly for both the Northeast Corridor, which the good gentleman from New Jersey just talked about, but also the National Network. This doesn't include billions of dollars going to passenger rail grant and loan programs at DOT, many of which Amtrak has been and remains eligible for at this moment. It doesn't include it. This amounts to at least $4.4 billion for Amtrak across both accounts. They are already getting that, $4.4 billion per year, preauthorized, prepaid. Why in the world would we continue to pump money into a budget line item that will automatically get generous support for the next few years at least? Like I just said, $4.4 billion. Furthermore, this ignores that sucking chest wound of Amtrak's finances. Even before the pandemic, Amtrak's ticket revenue wasn't meeting its operating expenses; and now after the pandemic, numbers look even more grim. In FY22 Amtrak ran an astounding $886 million operating deficit, $806 million of which was from the National Network, easily the lion's share. We simply must stop the bleeding. While I didn't vote for the Biden blowout infrastructure bill, it did contain a supplemental appropriation of $3.2 billion per year for FY22 through FY26 for Amtrak's National Network. They are already getting that $3.2 billion. This amendment simply cuts $776 million contained in this bill, the bill that we are trying to move today, this bill, from the National Network. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes over $130 million in transit infrastructure grants for the earmarks contained in this bill. Even though many of my colleagues have chosen to request earmarks, or using the current euphemism, community project funding, I remain opposed to the use of this funding for local projects. The corruptive and wasteful earmark process represents what I believe are the worst of our taxpayers' dollars being spent on projects that oftentimes have no Federal nexus whatsoever. Take some of the grant projects being funded in this bill using transit infrastructure grants: $1.05 million for the rehabilitation of the Baldwin Park Train Station in Baldwin Park, California. I am sure it is beautiful. I am sure the residents love it. People in Pennsylvania don't know where it is and don't want to pay for it. $790,000 for the West Anaheim zero-emission microtransit project. I am not even sure what that is. Maybe I would be sure if I was in West Anaheim, but I am in Pennsylvania. I am not planning on traveling there anytime soon, but apparently my tax dollars are. $850,000 for the City of Phoenix Valley Metro microtransit. The City of Phoenix is beautiful. I have been there. I haven't used the microtransit project, but I get to pay for it, and so do all my bosses. $850,000 for the Norwalk Transit System bus stop equity project in Norwalk, California. I am sure it is beautiful. I am not sure what the equity project is. I would rather not pay for it, and neither would the folks that sent me here. They don't want to pay for it either because they don't have any money, and neither does this government. Now, there is no doubt that some of the earmarks funded in this bill will benefit some folks around the country. However, again, many of them have no Federal nexus. State and local governments should be doing these things, not the Federal Government. I bet nearly all of them are already eligible for some form of Federal transit spending anyhow. They don't need an earmark, and they can compete like everybody else on that boondoggle. We don't need this boondoggle on top of that boondoggle. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I understand that it received guidance. It doesn't matter to me if it the received guidance. As a matter of fact, it seems to me based on the examples I gave you that the guidance is flawed, which is why I voted against this when we started this session and we crafted the rules. I voted against all of this because I knew this was going to happen. I don't cast any aspersions to Republicans or Democrats in this. I am not going to name any names. I am not mad at anybody here. I think it is bad for the whole country, and it is a bad way of doing business. As to the safety aspect, I guess when you don't have any real argument to make about the projects themselves and the alleged Federal nexus, you throw the old safety--like, of course, everybody on this side of the aisle, we want to be unsafe. We love to be unsafe. We want everybody to be unsafe just like we like to breathe dirty air and drink dirty water, and people somehow believe that. Nothing could be further from the truth. If the only way we can be safe is by bankrupting the country, I wonder how this country made it this far. We made it pretty far without bankrupting ourselves, but yet, we can make it no further. I guess that is what we are going to learn here with this process on this bill. Too much money. Too much borrowing. We can't afford it. No Federal nexus. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, and I yield the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, this shouldn't be hyperpartisan. My friends on the other side of the aisle, I am sure they like taking the train. I am sure their constituents and their bosses do, as well. Having other people pay for it is an awesome circumstance. Everybody would want that. We all like things for free, but things aren't free. We have to pay for things in this country, and we are out of money, Mr. Chairman. It shouldn't be hyperpartisan, and it is not hyperpartisan. Those in this room would have you believe that, but there are people on both sides of the aisle who know that this thing is inefficient, wasteful, dangerous, and, yes, indeed, reckless. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, reckless? We just heard from the gentleman right before me about how dangerous it is to ride in the National Capital's transit system. People come here and it is dangerous to ride on the transit system of their Capital. That is reckless. This transit system is expecting to get this $150 million in grants, and they are still going to lose $750 million in 2025 and $830 million in 2026. They are still going to lose that even with the $150 million because they have no interest in trying to make this solvent. Why should they? They keep on getting bailed out by the good people from around the country who can't even go to their Nation's Capital and be sure that they won't be beaten up, robbed, or worse on the transit system. It is unacceptable. There ought to be some accountability. There ought to be any accountability. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike the funds for the Capital Investment Grant Program. For the past decade, the Capital Investment Grant Program has led to the misallocation of funds to the most expensive projects without regard to the project's financial viability or expected ridership, which would seem to me to be kind of important. By overextending their resources in search of Federal grant funding, transit agencies fail to consider the impact this will have on their ability to provide existing services. While this was true before the pandemic, it is of particular concern in the post-pandemic environment. FDA data shows 2023 ridership came in a little over 50 percent of 2019 levels, so there is little need to build out additions to the transit system before we can ascertain the long-term impact of the pandemic and the interest in public transportation generally on ridership. People aren't riding, yet we are going to build more of this stuff. That seems, I don't know, a little counterintuitive to me. Congress now has provided in excess of $100 billion in annual and emergency spending to public transit agencies over the pandemic era period. There is a reason for that. We need to slow down and determine where future ridership is headed before we continue to throw good money after bad into capital projects we can't afford, are unnecessary, and will never be sustained. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, no one here is anti-mobility. We are anti- bankruptcy. We want everybody to be able to go where they need to go when they need to go there. We can't afford these projects. The fact is the only way they can be done is if the Federal Government pays for them. It would probably be done no other way, which begs the question: If it is the only way they can be done, are they really affordable? Of course, they are not. It is how we ended up $33 trillion in debt, for things like this. Again, we are not opposed to anybody, any State, any locality investing in their community to do these things. The Federal Government simply doesn't have the money to do it anymore. The gentleman talks about the return on investment. Well, the return on investment doesn't come to these projects because if it did, they wouldn't be seeking all this money every single year. Return on investment doesn't come to the taxpayers. We just keep spending and spending and spending. Somebody in this place, somebody in this body, somebody in this town has to pick somewhere to start saving some money. We don't have any problem with the rest of everything we do picking the winners and losers, but there can never be any losers when it comes to funding in this place except for the taxpayer. They get to lose because no one cares about them. I am here to say I care about them. We have got to stop this. Mr. Chair, I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.