Scott Perry

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will reduce the funding to the Environmental Protection Agency by 17 percent to ensure the EPA bureaucrats are not immune to the negative impacts of their actions in the form of regulation. You wonder why 17 percent. I am going to get to that. EPA regulations generally jeopardize our Nation's access to affordable, reliable power and will lead to skyrocketing electricity costs. By their own admission, and by design, unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in the EPA are pursuing an ideological agenda while imposing real costs in the real world on the economy and on everyday Americans. An analysis conducted by the National Economic Research Associates, or NERA, in November of 2015 found compliance with the Clean Power Plan would cost consumers and businesses nearly $300 billion from 2022 to 2033. Now, despite these staggering costs, the Clean Power Plan will have virtually no effect on climate change as it reduces atmospheric CO2 concentrations by less than one-half of 1 percent. One- half of 1 percent, and that cost $300 billion in that period of time. NERA estimates the Clean Power Plan will burden Pennsylvania--the State where I am privileged to represent a district--with an average annual electricity price of 17 percent. That is where I came up with the 17 percent. They are saying that my constituents are going to pay 17 percent more for their power. So it seems to me that the EPA should feel the pain as well. You can see what the estimated burden imposed on each State is by the Clean Power Plan at the Web site www.americaspower.org/nera. You can check it out for yourself. Because you don't live in Pennsylvania, it might be a little more, it might be a lot more. This amendment will ensure that bureaucrats in the EPA will feel the impact that their ideological agenda has imposed on the American citizen by reducing the appropriations for the EPA by 17 percent. My consumers, my citizens, my voters didn't have any choice in this. They are just going to have to pay 17 percent more for their electricity. This amounts to a funding reduction of about $1.4 billion. That is what it costs the EPA. It costs every one of my consumers 17 percent every time they pay their electricity bill. It is only fair that the EPA is forced to make hard decisions as to how to divide up its smaller budgets as it has forced to do what the families that I am privileged to represent have to do if this rule is enacted. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment prevents the Department of the Interior and the EPA from using in-house agency assets and, specifically, their agency owned and operated UAS for land surveying, mapping, imaging, and other such remote sensing activities. Mr. Chairman, you may have heard that last month the Federal Aviation Administration, the FAA, announced that the new small UAS unmanned aerial system--UAS rule, part 107, including all pilot and operating rules--will be effective on August 29 of this year. That is important because that will allow commercial activity in the UAS arena, not just government activity. Now, perhaps no new technology in history will revolutionize the aerial surveying and mapping community like unmanned aerial systems. The benefits of commercial and private UAS are incalculable. Technology has moved forward rapidly, and what used to be considered toys are quickly becoming powerful commercial tools that provide enormous benefits in terms of safety and efficiency. When UAS are performing missions connected to surveying and mapping areas for stewardship decisions and public policy, society is only just beginning to realize the full potential of the unmanned aerial system. Indeed, the demand for UAS for business purposes has been far reaching and continues to grow. UAS technology is already bringing substantial benefits to people's daily lives. The timely acquisition of geospatial data is critical to assessment, realtime decisionmaking, and mitigation during and immediately following both natural and manmade disasters, including earthquakes, tornadoes, blizzards, floods, volcanic eruptions, wildfires, hurricanes, infrastructure disasters, including collapsed buildings, bridges, and dams, ruptured pipelines, various types of terrorists incidents, and in emergency blue tarp surveys to support postdisaster response. There is a concern that agencies like the USGS and the Bureau of Land Management are acquiring unmanned aerial systems and regularly utilizing them on projects that can be accomplished by the private sector, directly competing with the private sector. The result is a loss of business for the private sector under contract to other Federal mapping agencies. The government is getting a leg up on the private sector by obtaining certificates of authorization, or COAs, which are required to fly the UAS and performing services with UAS that are otherwise commercial in nature. Currently, there is no effective enforcement and oversight to prevent government abuse of such authority for commercial purposes. The fact that government agencies can operate a UAS while the private sector cannot as freely or timely gain airspace access has created an uneven playing field. Allowing the Department of the Interior to use UAS in direct competition with the private sector is not only poor stewardship of taxpayer money, but it is also an inefficient use of resources. It also results in the government duplicating and directly competing with private enterprise, which is something that we don't seek to do. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I find a lot in common with the chairman and the gentlewoman from Minnesota. Certainly in times of emergency we would want to use the assets that are available to us immediately. The amendment says it prohibits the Agency to perform surveying, mapping, or collecting remote sensing data. None of those are, generally speaking, an emergency situation; so I find some agreement, but this is what the amendment says. I just want to let everybody know that this is a $73 billion market, and while we wait around in the United States and wait on the FAA to promulgate rules beyond the line of sight, et cetera, the market moves further and further away from the United States. It drives more than $1 trillion in economic activity. More than 500,000 American jobs are related to the collection, storage, and dissemination of imagery and geospatial data. Another 5.3 million workers utilize such data. As much as 90 percent of the government information has a geospatial information component. Up to 80 percent of the information managed by business is connected to a specific location, and it is identified by the Department of Labor as one of just 14 high-gross sectors of the United States workforce. I find it problematic that we are giving our government a leg up when the private sector is the one that pays for the government, and they are on the cutting edge of this. This amendment is supported by the American Farm Bureau; the Business Coalition for Fair Competition; and MAPPS, the association of mapping and geospatial firms. I understand the arguments on the other side, but I think it is important that we stay on the cutting edge and we move forward in the private sector and not empower and enrich the government sector in this regard. So with all due respect, I hope that my colleagues will vote in favor of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

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

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, how much time is remaining?

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, no one denies that the 1973 Clean Air Act isn't law. No one denies that. But what we are pointing out is that, with the Paris accord, it activates section 115 in a way never perceived that to happen in 1973 when the law was passed. They didn't think that other governments were going to control the United States State by State by State. But that is indeed what can happen here--and probably what will happen here. Pursuant to the agenda of the administration to reduce CO2 produced by United States by 80 percent, I know that the air was dirtier in 1973, as you said, when you were in high school or what have you, but what this is going to do is take us back to the 1900s, before the time of cars and X-rays and refrigerators and everything that makes a 21st century life livable for us. That is what this is going to do, if we allow the President's agenda to role forward with the Paris climate accord enshrined and then enacted through the Clean Air Act and section 115. All this amendment wishes to do and seeks to do is make sure that that statute isn't enacted, per the Paris climate agreement--not a treaty, an agreement--between individuals, not between our countries Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will prevent funds from being used to expand the EPA authority pursuant to section 115 of the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act, which has served us well since 1973, hasn't needed to be expanded, it has been used over and over again to make sure that we clean up our act. Section 115 of the Clean Air Act allows the EPA to mandate State emission levels to whatever amount the Agency deems appropriate if they find two things. Listen to that again. The Clean Air Act, section 115, allows the EPA--the Federal Government--to mandate all 50 of our States' emission levels to whatever amount the Agency deems appropriate--whatever amount--if they find two things. This has been there since 1973. It hasn't been relevant, but it is now. If the EPA finds that U.S. emissions endanger a foreign nation and the endangered nation has a reciprocal agreement to prevent or control emissions in their own nation. Now, where that comes into play is the Paris climate agreement. It was just signed, and even though it is not a treaty, because we have the Clean Air Act and section 115, it is now operative or potentially operative. Many believe and have argued that the U.N. Paris climate agreement meets these requirements and, once again, would allow the Federal Government to mandate our State emission levels to whatever amount the agency deems appropriate, period. The President has proven time and time again that he has no problem circumventing Congress and working unilaterally to achieve his policy priorities. I suspect since he is in favor of the Paris climate agreement, that this is one of his policies. With the Clean Power Plan caught up in the courts as the President's administration comes to an end, there is a serious concern and a legitimate concern that he will act unilaterally to cement his environmental legacy by enforcing section 114 in this way. This amendment would block this attempt to delegate nearly unlimited power and authority over the energy sector in each one of our States to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats at the EPA. Such expansive authority of the EPA would be economically devastating and could threaten the reliability and viability of our Nation's energy sector. I know the President has got 5, 6 months left to go, and he would like to get as many regulations on the books as possible. We simply cannot let this happen, and we cannot leave it to chance. I would urge my colleagues to an affirmative vote on this amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, this is not to deny climate change. This is about authority. Whose authority? The United States and the individual States don't need foreign governments through the Federal administration telling us, telling them how to run their railroads and their businesses and how much they regulate their own clean air pursuant to the 1973 Clean Air Act. That is why we have the Federal Government, and that is why it collaborates with the State. This agreement is not a treaty ratified by the United States Senate. This is an agreement between individuals that potentially gives the power to the Federal Government to regulate in an unlimited fashion every one of our States. No one in the States signed up for this. No one in the United States Senate voted on this. This is an agreement between individuals, and it should not be left to stand in this fashion. This amendment just says that we are going to follow the Clean Air Act, passed in 1973, just like we have been. Nothing has changed. Nothing has changed for the States. It has changed between individuals in this administration and people all around the globe that wish to limit the United States' productivity through regulation. That is why this amendment is important, and that is why I hope Members will support it. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Anecdotally, it has been some time since we had the hearing on this subject, but, as I recall, the vast majority of these vehicles in the Federal Protective Service were SUVs, including the ones that travel around Washington, D.C. Of those, the vast majority of them had an average of about 15,000 miles on them, and the fleet was generally turned over about 30 percent at a time almost on an annual basis. I just recall what 15,000 miles is to most people in America. That is a new vehicle, and it is an SUV. Do you really need an SUV? I understand it in parts of, maybe, the Midwest or in mountainous terrain or in swampy terrain or something--but, really, in Washington, D.C.? Folks at the FPS had absolutely no issue with the program, which is what prompted me to further this legislation and offer it. I thank the gentlewoman from New Jersey for her collaborative help and for her willingness to work with me on this and for her support on this. Once again, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4785. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (HR. 4785) to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to direct the Under Secretary for Management of the Department of Homeland Security to make certain improvements in managing the Department's vehicle fleet, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include any extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 5385 is a great move forward in the QHSR. Mrs. Watson Coleman and I believe in transparency and also believe in being on the same page when it comes to security and the safety of our Nation and in making sure that we can follow the metrics that the DHS is using to evaluate that so we can do better in the future. I applaud her for her efforts on this legislation as well as for her ability to get it passed through the committee on a bipartisan basis. Once again, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5385. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5385) to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to make technical corrections to the requirement that the Secretary of Homeland Security submit quadrennial homeland security reviews, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of H.R. 5385, the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review Technical Correction Act of 2016. Congress mandated through the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 that the Department of Homeland Security conduct a quadrennial homeland security review, or a QHSR, every 4 years. This review is intended to outline the DHS' vision and strategy to effectively implement its mission to protect the homeland. Given the threats we face from radical Islamist terrorists, it is vital that the DHS has a sound strategy to keep the American public safe. Earlier this year, the Government Accountability Office reported on opportunities for the DHS to improve the QHSR process. The GAO made four recommendations for executive action, and this legislation leverages the GAO's findings to make the QHSR better. Specifically, this legislation requires the DHS to conduct a risk assessment to better inform the QHSR. The bill also mandates that the DHS maintain a paper trail of communications related to the QHSR. This should allow Congress and watchdogs to conduct more effective oversight of the DHS. I thank the gentlewoman from New Jersey for introducing this legislation. I absolutely urge all Members to join me in supporting this commonsense legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include any extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5056) to modernize and enhance airport perimeter and access control security by requiring updated risk assessments and the development of security strategies, and for other purposes.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for his well-thought-out, well-placed, and long-overdue legislation. It makes me think of my time serving in the United States military as an airfield commander charged with many things, including the security of the airfield. Knowing that our adversaries, at any level, whether it is on the civilian side or the military side, continuously probe and look for ways to thwart us in our efforts to maintain our security, ever changing their tactics, techniques, and procedures--you can see from the recent attacks where they figured they could not get their device or their activities onto the plane. They just simply attacked prior to getting on the plane and actually attacking prior to going through security--so it is in that spirit that we know that we must be right every single bit of the time. There is no margin for error, which is why this legislation is so well placed and so timely. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5056. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5056, the Airport Perimeter and Access Control Security Act, sponsored by Congressman Bill Keating. In recent months, we have seen attacks at airports and aircraft overseas and, in every instance, the integrity and effectiveness of the airport security infrastructure and the insider threat has been concerning. For this reason, we must scrutinize the security of our Nation's airports and ensure that the public has confidence that their travels will be safe and secure in this high-threat environment. Specifically, H.R. 5056 directs the TSA to update its official risk assessment for the aviation sector to reflect the latest available threat intelligence. Moreover, the bill mandates that TSA's comprehensive risk assessment of perimeter and access control security is more regularly updated and that TSA conducts a sectorwide assessment of airport access control vulnerabilities and mitigation efforts. All of this information is required for an updated national strategy for airport perimeter and access control security, which TSA has failed to update since 2012, despite multiple access controls and perimeter security breaches at airports across the country. As this bill demonstrates, we cannot focus solely on the effectiveness of our passenger screening checkpoints while allowing lax security around the airport perimeter and within the sterile areas of airports. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Keating for introducing this critical legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill. I reserve the balance of my time.