Scott Perry

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Will the gentlewoman yield?

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

Mr. PERRY. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, what I am concerned about is not necessarily the Trump administration or the Obama administration. Any administration with the unbridled power that section 115 gives the administration, without any checks or balances, to make an agreement with another nation and then enforce--have their agency enforce their regulations at whatever they deem appropriate on every single State in the United States, without any ability of Congress to intervene whatsoever. It is not particular to this administration, the last administration, or any future administration. It is particular to all of them. The authority, in my opinion, should not exist for them to do that without any checks and balances from the legislative branch.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment would prohibit the use of funds for FMCSA and NHTSA-- two agencies--to finalize their joint notice of proposed rulemaking mandating the use of speed limiting devices on heavy-duty trucks and buses. To support their proposal, FMCSA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration focused on the potential decrease in the severity of accidents. However, the severity of accidents is already trending downward, Mr. Chairman. As a matter of fact, the large truck-involved fatal crash rate per 100 million miles has dropped 74 percent since 1980. Bus-involved fatal crash rate per 100 million miles has dropped 71 percent since 1980 without the Federal Government's involvement in speed limiting device. It is not clear that the mandate would further reduce these crashes. According to the FMCSA reports, 74.1 percent of truck-involved fatal crashes occur on noninterstates with speed limits lower than the proposed levels. So they are going to put the speed limiter on, but it is not even going to apply where the accidents happen. These are significant concerns that this mandate may actually increase the number of accidents. Studies have consistently shown that a higher variance of vehicle speed increases accident risk. It is not good to have some vehicles going slow and some going really fast in the same place. Speed limiters create speed differentials among vehicles. As interaction among these vehicles increases, so does the likelihood of more accidents. Speed limiters will result in lost productivity, necessitating more heavy-duty vehicles on the road to support current demand because they won't be able to get the product where they want to get it to because they are all going to be going slower, mandated by the Federal Government. Thank goodness the Good Idea Fairy from the Federal Government showed up where nobody asked them to. Finally, this proposal disregards the authority of States to determine speed limits within their borders. Again, thank goodness the Federal Government is here to tell all 50 States how to run their railroads and run their highways and their speed limits. If speed limiters led to fuel savings and increased safety, the market will incentivize the use of these devices. The market does this and does it well and does it best. However, it is not their role. This is not the role of the Federal Government to mandate their use. Mr. Chairman, I am not asking for less money or more money. I am asking you to save money and save freedom for the American people, make sure their products get to their homes on time, and to get the Federal Government out of the way of one truck trying to pass another one, one doing 54 and another one doing 54.1 miles an hour for 20 miles up the highway. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, the facts are clear that, as I stated, large truck-involved fatal crashes per 100 million miles has dropped 74 percent since 1980, before speed limiters were even available. Bus- involved fatal crashes per 100 million miles has dropped 71 percent since 1980, before all this happened. Somehow the private sector doesn't want to crash their trucks, and if the private sector and certain companies want to install the speed limiters, they do that because they don't want to crash their trucks. Guess what, folks. Most people don't want to crash their trucks. Another thing. You know, we love these agencies to do the things that we don't want to do, apparently, and then we create them, and then they do things that we don't want them to do, and we say: Well, we abrogate to ourselves. Yeah, we were duly elected by the citizens of this country to run the country. They didn't elect any of these people to come up with these rules. They don't want them. So I am here to defend the people that want freedom and don't want nameless, faceless, account-less bureaucrats running our lives. And this is one instance where they are doing it. Mr. Chairman, I ask for positive consideration of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, we are in agreement that the regulations have to be in place. I, too, like the yellow sticker, just like she does; and somehow the yellow stickers are in place without this new rule. They are there right now. You have been seeing them for years. This is new--this is a new regulation. I would contend that, yeah, the manufacturers have gotten on board and they have negotiated this rule. Because what choice did they have, right? The Federal Government is going to regulate. They are going to do it. You either get in the game and play ball or you know what happens to the bat. Right? They didn't want to be in that position, so they took the best they could. I am telling you and it is my contention that the free market is going to figure this out because we all want the most efficient, the most cost-effective, and the most maintenance-effective, whether it is an air-conditioner, whether it is a car, or whether it is an electric toothbrush. We don't need the Federal Government telling us to do it. By the way, this company has applied for a waiver, years in the making. They literally have the president of the company spending almost, he said, 85 percent of his time dealing with Federal regulation compliance. The president of the company is the guy who wants to hire these 125 people, go make sales, and produce things. Instead, all he is doing is dealing with the Federal Government. Somehow, someway we all got to this point. It feels pretty cool in the Capitol right now, right? It feels pretty cool in the House of Representatives. The yellow labels were there before this regulation ever happened. Mr. Chairman, I ask and urge the Members to vote in favor of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank the Appropriations Committee for the extraordinary work they have done in a very limited amount of time. This amendment would prohibit the use of funds to implement or enforce the final rule published by the former Secretary of Energy, entitled: ``Test Procedures for Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps.'' Mr. Chairman, this is simply an example of too much Washington, too much government. I am sure it was well-intended, but I am not sure if the good idea fairies in Washington really realized fully what they did. Certainly we want to have test standards and so on and so forth, but the one-size-fits-all approach that comes out of Washington misses some folks and can cause some irreparable damage to businesses all around the country. And all around the country there are small manufacturers that are trying to build some air-conditioners. In particular, there is one in the district that I represent that builds custom-made air-conditioners and heat pumps for skyscrapers and high-rise buildings. If I can picture the scene, the original units are put in when the buildings are being constructed. So there are cranes available, there are openings in the walls and in the structure, and they just move the stuff in, and then they close it all up. In 10, 15, 20, 30 years later when they go to replace it, well, the walls are in, the windows are in, the people are in, the offices are in. There is no crane available, and they have to piece this thing together through the elevator and into the closet. So this company, like other ones around the country, make custom-made ones, each one for a specific application--each one. But the Department of Energy, and this rule in particular, says that this company must test each model that they make for these efficiency standards--each one--an arduous test taking months, if not years, in documentation for one application. Again, I am sure the Department of Energy was well-intended. However, this rule is going to put a business out. They work in the city of York, a fine city in central Pennsylvania, right downtown where we want manufacturing to happen, where people can walk to work. These folks are trying. They are struggling to survive in this economy, and the only thing that is going to put them out is this regulation, Mr. Chairman. While well-intended, it is not going to be helpful. These folks are trying to do the right thing, but the government is getting in the way. Believe it or not, Consumer Reports actually recommended against buying some of these systems under this testing rule because the systems had higher costs and poor repair records. Believe it or not, Mr. Chairman, the free market actually fixes most of this stuff. Most of us want to buy more efficient things that are cheaper, that are easier to maintain, and have a better record. This is Consumer Reports talking. This isn't Perry's record. This is Consumer Reports talking. Let us not put this company out of business. Let us not put these companies out of business. Let us be responsible. I urge passage. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, a lot of what we hear is is that our constituents wish that we would work together more often, and I thank the gentlewoman for her comments and her support; and I think it is just proof that we can work together for something that we agree on, which is clean power, the power to just power our future, and that comes from hydroelectricity. I don't know why it is not as sexy as it should be. I think it is one of the greatest marvels of technology starting back since the beginning of time and when power was first generated, and I don't understand why we don't rely on it more. To that end, literally 60,000 megawatts of preliminary permits and projects await final approval and are pending before FERC in 45 States right now. Eighty thousand--80,000--nonpowered dams in the United States, of which 600 have immediate hydro capability, right now could be producing energy. Mr. Chair, 80,000 nonpowered dams in the United States, just think about that. And the State I hail from and I am privileged to represent a portion of, Pennsylvania, has 678 megawatts of untapped hydropower right now. Mr. Chairman, I would just urge all of our colleagues to vote for this amendment. I, again, appreciate the chairmen of the committee and of the subcommittee for this opportunity, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by thanking the chairman of the full committee for his extraordinary work and for the chairman of the subcommittee for this auspicious opportunity. I have been listening to the arguments recently that we have had on the floor regarding the most recent amendments between fossil fuels and renewables, and I am hoping to strike a sweet spot here. I am not picking on fossil fuels, and I am going to talk about a renewable that I think everybody has an affinity for and an agreement with. This amendment simply increases funding for hydroelectric through the EERE by $15 million and decreases funding to the bureaucracy. There is no increase to the budget. This amendment just increases the appropriation for the Office of Energy and Efficiency and Renewable Energy because hydropower is available in every region of the country; 2,200 hydropower plants provide America's most abundant source of clean, renewable electricity. I would say it is the first renewable. It accounts for 67 percent of domestic renewable generation and, clearly, 7 percent of total electricity generation. By 2025, hydropower would create almost a million and a half new, good, high-paying jobs. It can be implemented in rivers, harbors, coastal areas, et cetera, to capture energy from currents and tides. Harnessing this energy will create a truly and absolutely renewable and green source of energy without any emissions and with little fanfare to everybody involved. Hydro is predictable year-round power output, while other renewable source outputs can be variable in some areas and necessitate the use of large battery banks and alternate power sources. For instance, sometimes when the wind doesn't blow, believe it or not, if you don't know it, there is a gas-fired generator often associated with those windmill farms that has to come on because base load isn't being serviced. Hydropower facilities are quiet, unobtrusive, while many people report that considerable noise is generated by wind power and that land is taken up by huge solar farms. Hydropower is base load energy. That means it is on all the time, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, just sitting there turning out the power so that you can hit the light switch when you come home and not wonder: Is the power going to be on? It backs up other intermittent sources of energy. Hydropower is safe. It harms neither fish nor man. It all faces a comprehensive and regular regulatory approval process. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I don't disagree with my colleagues on the other side. I said that. We need the CBO. We created the CBO. Congress needs to have reliable information. The problem is, it is not reliable. It is not reliable on the testimony that was just given against this amendment. That is the problem. The CBO--right now where there are 10.4 enrollees--is telling us, in 2 years, there are going to be 25 million enrollees. Meanwhile, there are less exchanges open, and there are fewer insurers available. It is not going up; it is going down. The CBO, when we say that they would reflect the current time, they absolutely don't. That is the problem. They don't even reflect reality when reality is right in front of them. The CBO needs to wake up. Who among us works for half the time and gets it doubly wrong and gets the same paycheck? The CBO. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the time remaining.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, our Nation is $20 trillion in debt, and there might be $100 trillion or $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities. I am not sure we really know what the answer is there. But we have got to find a way to reduce our spending and make sure that the things we are paying for are worthy and that we are getting something--we are actually getting what we are paying for. I am offering an amendment to H.R. 3219 to reduce the appropriations to the Congressional Budget Office by 50.4 percent. We all know and agree the Congressional Budget Office is tasked with determining the budget and economic impacts of proposed legislation which are critical to our everyday decisions. Oftentimes, they are late, and, unfortunately, too often they are woefully incorrect. I don't mean to impugn the fine people who work at the CBO, but something is amiss. If we keep on accepting it, how are we ever going to get our policy right? The CBO's fiscal analysis is consistently incorrect, and, as a result, has detrimental implications on a variety of policies. This amendment reduces the CBO's fiscal year '18 appropriations by 50.4 percent which just happens to be the exact same percentage that the CBO was off when it predicted the enrollment numbers for the Affordable Care Act exchanges in 2016. In 2010, the CBO projected that 21 million people would enroll in the exchange plans by 2016. The actual enrollment was about 10.4 million people. That is an error of 50.4 percent, Mr. Chairman. Now, maybe the CBO's projections would have improved as the ACA continued to take shape after 2010, and that seems reasonable. That is not correct. That is wrong. It didn't improve. Four years later, the CBO predicted that, from 2016, between 23 and 25 million people would receive coverage through the exchanges. In 2014, the updated CBO analysis projected that 24 million people would receive coverage through the exchange in 2016. However, the actual 2016 enrollment in the ACA exchanges was 10.4 million people. So it is less than half. They always predict about twice as much, or costs twice as much, and the numbers always seem to be half as much. That is a big deal. We passed the American Health Care Act in here, and I went to my townhall, and CBO is saying: well, 23 to 24 million people are going to lose their insurance because of the American Health Care Act. Well, yes, if you use the CBO's numbers which based the analysis on what they projected. They don't even look at reality. We have got the reality right now. The reality is 10.4 million people, not 23 and 25 million--10.4. But that is how they view this thing, and that is what we vote on here. That is a problem. I also want to highlight the failure of the CBO to forecast the cost of the Medicaid expansion. In 2013, the CBO projected that 34 million people would be on Medicaid or CHIP in 2016; however, in 2016, the CBO doubled, once again, they doubled their earlier estimates to 68 million people. I mean, who gets to be off by that much and still receive--it is not like there is no accountability; there isn't any accountability, Mr. Chairman. As a result, in March of 2016, the CBO increased its projection of Federal spending for Medicaid by $146 billion. These are figures that we make decisions on around here. Mr. Chairman, the CBO simply must be held accountable for its consistent failure to accurately or even reasonably predict budget and economic impacts of legislation. CBO is a critical contribution to our discussion and decisionmaking. We simply need to be able to depend on it as such. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, today I offer my sincere congratulations to my constituent, Delilah Rumburg, on her upcoming retirement after more than 23 years of service as Chief Executive Officer of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape (PCAR). Delilah began her service to our community in 1981, at ACCESS York, a domestic violence shelter in the 4th Congressional District. In her own words, she knew she found her life's work and later joined PCAR as its CEO in 1995. Since then, she has lead PCAR's tremendous growth and outreach to communities in Pennsylvania and throughout the Nation. Delilah served on the Pennsylvania Task Force for Child Protection, as the Civilian Deputy Co-Chair of the Department of Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services, and as Co-Chair of the U.S. Department of Defense Task Force on Sexual Harassment and Violence at the Military Service Academies. Delilah's tireless dedication, professionalism and passion towards ending sexual violence has touched the lives of countless people and challenged all with whom she served to be the best. Her legacy of service to our community and Nation truly is admirable. On behalf of Pennsylvania's Fourth Congressional District, I commend and congratulate Delilah Rumburg on her tireless service, and wish her and her family continued great success in their future adventures.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee for his hard work and his defense of those who wear the uniform and take on that tough task. In these tough and troubling times, especially in financial austerity, he stood up and let everybody know how the military, in actual dollars over the last 8 years, has been cut significantly, and the impact on our national security. In that vein, my goal with this amendment is to prioritize those limited defense resources on efforts that pose an immediate and direct threat to our national security. This amendment would strike section 336 of the NDAA, which strikes the requirement for the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the vulnerability to military installations and combatant commander requirements resulting from climate change over the next 20 years. I am not here to debate climate change, whether it is real or it is not, how it is created, how we fix it, and all that stuff. That is for another day. My point is that this shouldn't be the priority of combatant commanders in our military. The United States military is currently operating in a very complex threat environment in which our country must be ready to face our adversaries. Our country is facing direct threats from a myriad of sources, including Islamic extremists: ISIS, al-Qaida, the Taliban, Abu Sayyaf. The alphabet soup of names in that regard is continuous and unrelenting: North Korea, China, Iran, Russia, even in space. Over the past 8 years, our military strength and readiness has suffered as a result of the underfunding and neglect from the previous administration that are in support of sequestration. Through the NDAA, we simply must prioritize, decide what is most important and be for that, and let our warfighters know where we stand. These things must strengthen the rebuilding of our Armed Forces and resolve their focus on what they need to pay attention to. Literally litanies of other Federal agencies deal with environmental issues, including climate change. This Federal mandate detracts from the essential mission of the Department of Defense, which is to secure our Nation from enemies, and is best left to the agencies that are better suited to deal with these issues. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.