Scott Perry

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), the chairman of the full committee.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk as approved by the House Rules Committee.

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

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman and would echo his gratitude for the staff. There are long nights and a lot of details to be worked through. To get these things right, we rely on folks that oftentimes are more the experts than we are. We sure appreciate their sacrifices on our behalf and on behalf of the Nation. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, this amendment simply ensures that no undue influence can be wielded by the Chinese Communist Party using an existing provision, which I think reflects the overall sentiment behind this anti-CCP and forced labor provision of the entire bill. The underlying section allows the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to accept and expend funds from non-Federal entities in order to pay for staff and information technology system development to expedite permit processing. They are authorized to accept funds in fiscal years 2023 through 2025. This amendment prohibits those Secretaries from accepting contributions from non-Federal entities owned by the Communist Party of China or a person or entity acting on behalf of the Communist Party of China. Seems pretty common sense. There are already provisions in the bill which would prohibit the CCP's involvement in certain parts of our energy market. They should not be allowed to participate in this one any more than they do in the others. There is no reason that our government should be accepting money from this well. Let's remind ourselves that we are not talking about the people of China who wish to breathe free, like all people in the world do. We are talking about the Communist Party of China. We don't need anything from them. Mr. Chair, I urge support and adoption of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague from the other side of aisle that we are finally willing to get together, Democrats and Republicans, and be tough on the Communist Party of China. Mr. Chair, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), the chairman of the full committee.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, the FAST Act provides for certain projects to be covered, which means projects that meet statutory requirements can gain voluntary access to a permitting timetable that contains all the necessary Federal environmental reviews and authorizations in one centralized location. The underlying text ensures certain Defense Production Act projects also receive that covered status unless the project sponsor opts out. This amendment specifically excludes the Defense Production Act projects related to solar panel and EV projects from that preferential treatment. This amendment does not alter the actual authorities provided in the Defense Production Act; it just says that the administration--any administration--can't get special treatment for projects that have absolutely nothing to do with national security. Solar energy is often unreliable and cannot compete without subsidies. EVs cannot compete in the competitive market without subsidies. Mr. Chairman, as far as I know, Congress hasn't declared war since I have been here. Using wartime authorities to subsidize these technologies simply doesn't change those facts. Worse yet, the projects empower the Chinese Communist Party and exploit their regime of slave labor. Roughly 50 percent of the world's polysilicon necessary to produce solar components comes from Xinjiang and Turkmenistan where they have the slave labor operation. Industry representatives have actually acknowledged the major disruption caused by this Congress' efforts to stop forced labor in the region. We should try to stop it every way we can, and this is one of the ways. Again, the solution is not to abuse wartime authorities to prop up domestic industry incapable of making a profit without generous taxpayer subsidies. Finally, while this amendment is relatively narrow in scope, I hope we have a broader conversation about the Defense Production Act on our side of the aisle to prevent abuses from this and future administrations. Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, again, this is about using wartime powers, and we haven't declared war. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), the chairman of the full committee.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk as approved by the Committee on Rules.

Mr. PERRY

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

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment repeals section 115 of the Clean Air Act. This vital amendment protects the autonomy of the States over their own energy sectors by ensuring that unelected, unaccountable EPA bureaucrats cannot seize control over these vital industries under the guise of emissions reductions. The Constitution clearly reserves this power to the States, and it is long overdue that we bring Federal policies back in line with the very Constitution that we swore an oath to. Section 115 gives EPA the authority to impose emission reductions on the States if the administrator finds, based on the word of some international organization--just based on their good word--that American air pollution endangers the public health and welfare of another country. Imagine if we could do that to China? The administrator determines that that country will lower their emissions a commensurate amount. Put a different way, section 115 allows the EPA to rely on the credibility of the same international elites who misled us about COVID to force our constituents to change every aspect of their lives because some European nation thought it would be great to do the same thing. Now, we would have to do the same thing. This is no longer a hypothetical. Since President Biden reentered the Paris climate agreement, it can be argued that these conditions have been met and EPA can immediately impose devastating requirements as it was argued when the Obama administration first entered the agreement. Subjecting such an important sector of our economy to the whims of foreign bureaucrats is downright reckless and hands U.S. sovereignty over to a foreign ideologue--not even foreign governments, just foreign bureaucrats. Removing the broadly written language in section 115 is the only way to prevent the delegation of nearly unlimited power over State energy sectors to the EPA bureaucrats and removes the ability of international organizations to meddle in our energy sector. It is vital that we prevent this Federal power grab before it imposes devastating economic consequences by empowering the States to meet the needs and interests of their own citizens. Language to prevent the use of section 115 of the Clean Air Act has passed the House three times under Republican majorities: Twice in the 115th Congress and once in the 114th. To those who view this amendment as premature because the administration has not yet acted under section 115, the impact was never questioned in the past. How many times do we have to wake up and say, well, I didn't think they would do it? I didn't think they would actually defund the police. I didn't think they would have the IRS show up at the guy's house when he was testifying in Congress. Heaven forbid, I didn't believe they would actually try and ban my gas stove. I thought they were just kidding around. They didn't really mean it. They do mean it. We know the administration is going to do so because the radical environmental groups that control their agenda have come out and said it. Here are a couple examples. The League of Conservation Voters: ``While there has been limited use of section 115, numerous scholars have advocated for its use as a pathway to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, particularly since the Paris Agreement.'' How about Foreign Policy for America: This amendment would undermine EPA's authority for ``its potential future applications to greenhouse gases.'' Yeah, we want to undermine their authority and make the authority of the States preeminent. The authority of citizens should be preeminent. Preemptively removing this authority from the administration before they can act is vital to U.S. sovereignty and our economic well-being. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Armstrong), since I know he wants to speak favorably about me.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Armstrong).

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, if you don't want to vote for this, I get it. You can tell your constituents at home that you stand for people that are unelected. Most folks at home have never even heard of the Delaware River Basin Commission. They don't even know about interstate compacts. Here is what they know: They want to live their lives, and they want to vote for elected officials to make decisions that are important to them. If it is so dangerous, how come it is banned here but not there? In the rest of Pennsylvania, we do it. Mr. Chairman, this is just taking the people's rights away, their voices away from their elected officials, and it is literally the definition of tyranny. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that has been approved by the Rules Committee.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, this amendment prohibits the unelected and unaccountable Delaware River Basin Commission, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, and the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River from improving hydraulic fracturing regulations more stringent, more stringent than those passed by the duly-elected State representatives and Senate in which the regulation is to be implemented or enforced. According to the Energy Information Administration, last year, residential natural gas prices were the highest on record. That is awesome. I am sure consumers love that. The best way to combat these record-high prices is with more competition; simply, more supply and demand. It is to produce more natural gas in America in places like my home State of Pennsylvania, the second-largest natural gas producer in the Nation. Unfortunately, again, unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats at the Delaware River Basin Commission have instituted a hydraulic fracturing ban for a portion of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, stripping away property rights and mineral rights from Pennsylvanians in contravention of the will of their very own legislature. The result is a prohibition on the development of critical shale plays in eastern Pennsylvania that can bring desperately needed natural gas to market and the unconstitutional taking of mineral rights of all Pennsylvanians. Using this playbook, radical environmentalists and unelected bureaucrats will next prevent hydraulic fracturing in the Susquehanna River Basin and the Potomac River Basin, as well. The threat of this expansion undermines investor confidence and exploration and development projects throughout the Commonwealth and further restricts domestic natural gas production. To be clear, this amendment simply clarifies that these three commissions cannot impose restrictions more stringent than those passed by the State in which the regulation is being implemented or enforced. It makes no changes to the ability of States to regulate hydraulic fracturing as they see fit, as their legislatures see fit, as their citizens see fit. This means it would have zero impact on existing fracturing bans in the State of New York. Instead, this amendment simply makes clear that Pennsylvanians can use their property and mineral rights as they see fit, subject to the Pennsylvania laws passed by their elected representatives, the way it is supposed to be done. Enough is enough already. It is time to stop this underhanded attack on property rights, representative government, and State sovereignty and restore American energy security. Opposition to this amendment is support for a hydraulic fracturing ban and for higher natural gas prices for your constituents and your citizens. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and rein in these unelected bureaucrats waging war on Americans in their very homes and support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk that has been approved by the Rules Committee.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 15) authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the National Peace Officers Memorial Service and the National Honor Guard and Pipe Band Exhibition.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 15.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have introduced this resolution along with Ranking Member Titus of the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management. This resolution authorizes the use of the Capitol Grounds for the 42nd Annual National Peace Officers Memorial Event to honor law enforcement officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice. These men and women put on their uniforms each day to serve and protect our communities and our families. Violent crime continues to be a daily tragedy in this country, and we have seen it, as a matter of fact, again today. It is critical that we recognize that police officers are doing an extremely difficult and dangerous job day in, day out, 365 days a year, to keep Americans safe. To all the law enforcement officers who put on the badge each day, who wear it with honor and distinction, we say thank you, and we support you. This resolution is just one small way we can demonstrate our support for these officers and their families and honor the men and women who lost their lives in the line of duty in 2022, including, unfortunately, 19 individuals from my home State of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this resolution and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I reiterate not only my support but my thanks to the gentlewoman from Nevada for her support of H. Con. Res. 15. And most importantly, for my thanks and support for the men and women who put their lives on the line each day to protect our communities and families. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Graves for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this is a case of no good deed goes unpunished. Now, the ranking member, a good gentleman, and I can agree that we all want clean water. But this is just simply a Federal Government overreach. That is all it is. And, oh, by the way, I will remind everybody that it is only 2 months ago my friends on the other side of the aisle controlled this body, the other body, and the Presidency. If they wanted to pass a law, then why didn't they? It is because they can't pass a law. This isn't about the Clean Water Act because the Clean Water Act still exists. This is about a rule made by bureaucrats down the street to control the water in your backyard. Mr. Speaker, if you have a child's swing set where they have hollowed out underneath the swing set, don't you dare fill it in, otherwise severe penalties--criminal imprisonment--can be imposed on you. This is absolutely outrageous, unnecessary, and must be stopped.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, as the designee of Congresswoman Virginia Foxx, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, just to comment before I yield some time, if the bill is redundant, if this isn't happening anyhow, then you shouldn't be opposed because it will affect no one. Regarding the 87,000 IRS agents, we are not talking about hiring 87,000 process workers to go through claims. We are talking about 87,000 agents to come to your home to investigate you. That is what we oppose. We want it to be done efficiently, and maybe if they weren't spending so much time on themselves, they could spend time on the American people. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer).

Mr. PERRY. May I inquire of the time remaining, Mr. Chairman?