Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, ineffective, unreliable, and dangerous. That is what we are here to talk about on this amendment. This amendment strikes the $28 million in this bill to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management renewable energy program that promotes the administration's reckless goal of creating 30 gigawatts of offshore wind production by 2030.
The promotion of the rapid expansion of offshore wind is particularly misguided considering offshore wind's high levelized cost, the significant lack of reliability, the impact on flight safety and national defense, and the threat to endangered ocean wildlife from offshore wind activity.
Offshore wind is one of the most expensive energy sources available. The Energy Information Administration estimates the levelized cost of energy for offshore wind at $136.51 per megawatt hour, which is three times as much as even onshore wind, which is still way more expensive than the traditional forms of energy that are clean and that we rely on to turn these very lights on in this Chamber.
The heavy reliance on offshore wind is a contributing factor to the United Kingdom having one of the highest electricity prices in the world.
In addition to being expensive, wind power is notoriously unreliable. Intermittency is a fact of life for wind power and one that cannot be overcome or ignored. More simply put, if the wind stops blowing, the power goes out. You don't have a backup because we are shutting down all the backups across this country.
One of the significant contributors to the European energy crisis in 2021 and 2022 is a flatlining of offshore wind production. Investing Federal resources in this expensive and unreliable technology is economically ill-advised and unaffordable as we are $33 trillion in debt.
Beyond the economic problems with offshore wind, these projects actively threaten national security, maritime safety, and flight safety.
The Department of Defense has identified most of the eastern Atlantic Coast as a wind exclusion zone for defense and defense training, including active and currently leased wind farm areas. The DOD, the people we rely on to keep us safe, said, no, they don't want this.
The interagency Wind Turbine Radar Interference Mitigation Working Group has raised concerns that these offshore wind farms will create radar interference that will impede air traffic control, homeland security, national defense, and weather forecasting.
Despite these concerns and the grave implications of radar interference on the military and the maritime and aviation industries, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has recklessly pursued these offshore wind projects without addressing any of these issues. The Bureau's renewable energy program is recklessly green-lighting wind energy projects without accounting for any of the concerns I just raised.
Congress must end the funding for this misguided program and protect American taxpayers from the funding of this, again, ineffective, unreliable, and dangerous form of energy.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew), someone on the front lines who is dealing with this and energy bills with his bosses, his constituents.
Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Chair, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership on this very important issue.
Mr. Chairman, it would be hard to find a district that has been more of a petri dish for the experiments of the Office of Renewable Energy Programs at BOEM than mine. I live it every single day.
Before I go on and talk about this, just from the heart, the projects that are coming up--fortunately, one of them, Orsted, some of you may have heard of it, has now left--have received billions of dollars of funding from the State and Federal Government. They, themselves, admit it would reduce our tourism industry, but they minimized it. The company itself said it would reduce it by approximately $1.1 billion only. It would kill our fishing industry.
It would really create very serious situations in our national defense and our national security. It would increase utility rates, again, according to the company itself, so it is probably much worse than the amount I previously stated; two to three to four times as much as we currently pay. It is a plan that would rely upon foreign countries to supply our energy. How stupid is that.
It has been a painful process. Thank God we won the first step when this huge, multinational, Danish company decided they couldn't take it anymore. We had a movement in south Jersey at our shore. Our shore counts. We have a beautiful, clean, pristine environment. It was an organic movement. It was the people. We had rallies. I myself produced 5,000 signs saying: Stop wind turbines. Renew and keep our beautiful shore.
This is from the heart. This was a bad plan that would industrialize the areas that they are focused upon and would cost a great deal of money.
Mr. Chair, it would be hard to find a district that has been more of a petri dish for the experiments of the Office of Renewable Energy at BOEM than mine.
In South Jersey, the industrialization of our shorelines at the hands of foreign offshore wind companies has been a top priority for BOEM and the Biden Administration.
Lies, lack of accurate information, and poor community engagement were rampant as offshore wind companies and their friends in the federal government tried to force these projects forward.
Well, I am happy to say that as of this week, much of the South Jersey coastline has been liberated from this threat.
But the Office of Renewable Energy's goals are clear: they want to force this President's Green New Deal agenda forward by any means necessary.
So, in a time of exceedingly high fuel prices and inflation, it is unconscionable to continue to send tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to an office whose priorities will only exacerbate these problems.
We must direct our resources towards tangible priorities, not partisan ideologies.
I hope all of my colleagues will join us in voting for this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, while I like the last amendment, I have got another good one.
This amendment strikes all funding, $3.75 million, for the Council on Environmental Quality. The Council on Environmental Quality was created by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to advance environmental policies and to meet requirements under NEPA.
The Biden administration has weaponized this CEQ with developing policies on climate change, environmental justice, and Federal sustainability, all while creating more paperwork under NEPA that the previous administration tried to reverse.
Mr. Chairman, these policies are what is holding America back. Onerous NEPA requirements and State-level laws like those in California are holding back countless programs and construction projects around the country. They are also part of the Democrat apparatus that aims to shift America's way of life by meeting unscientific emission goals.
The Federal Government is supposed to do a lot of things. It doesn't do many of them well, but it doesn't need to tell us how to cook our food. Yet, as written by the Department of Energy's own estimates for their gas stove rule, only 4 percent of gas stovetops available in the market today meet the new standard, essentially forcing Americans to choose electric stovetops.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her thoughts on it.
Why are there three?
We want to give the minority three opportunities to do the right thing. Oftentimes Members vote, and then they think, oh, boy. They hear from their constituents and say that I wish I didn't vote that way.
We want to make sure that the minority knows that this agency does not need to exist.
By the way, of all the things, again, that the Federal Government needs to do, it does not need to be doing this. The States are doing an adequate job. As a matter of fact, they are doing an awesome job and in some places it is too awesome of a job.
Take California. It is losing population for the first time in history because they are doing too awesome of a job of being tyrannical towards their citizens with policies just like this.
We want the minority to have the opportunity. We want the minority to know that this is a pressing issue. We want the minority to know that we are not giving up on it and that we are going to keep coming back until we end this boondoggle. Finally, we want to remind everybody--in case no one else knows it--we are $33 trillion in debt and in the next 18 months we will probably be $36 trillion in debt.
Mr. Chairman, if you can't afford electricity, groceries, or gasoline, your credit card payments are maxed out, and you can't afford to buy a new car, the reason is because this Congress, this institution, and this town refuses to stop the spending that is causing all of your high prices.
This is the place to stop the spending.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes $186.3 million in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. According to its website, the NEA is the largest funder of the arts and arts education in communities nationwide.
Now, this is all well and good. I am sure all of us here can appreciate the arts. Certainly, I attend my daughters' concerts. We have pictures hanging up in our home and pictures hanging up in my office. We bought them. We pay for our daughters' instruments. We pay for their instruction in music. We go to the plays, and we pay. However, again, we are $33 trillion in debt. We are heading for $36 trillion in the next 18 months.
According to a recent report by Giving USA 2023, in 2022, giving to the arts, culture, and humanities is estimated at over $24 billion. The funding in this bill is a drop in the bucket compared to those private- sector contributions. Yet, it is still important to an America that is careening towards bankruptcy.
Furthermore, there have been many debates about objectionable art funded by NEA grants including lewd or controversial topics. Our citizens, our bosses, and our constituents shouldn't have to be forced to pay for these things that they find objectionable. One current example is the NEA's current focus on equity, which only divides Americans using identity politics.
One way to completely avoid that debate is to stop subsidizing any of these projects.
The NEA also operates several programs that, quite frankly, shouldn't exist, including the Art in Architecture program which commissions art for Federal buildings, and the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Program which subsidizes the insurance of art exhibitions, both domestic and international, including private collections.
It is not enough that we pay for it here, we have to spend the money internationally, including private collections. This is our Federal Government. These are our Federal tax dollars of which we are borrowing right now to pay this bill. We just don't have the money for these programs.
I don't have anything against Americans creating wonderful art or enjoying wonderful art. I am one of them.
The question is: Should our taxpayers be paying for it?
I don't think that they should.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, the question really should be: Is this a Federal requirement? Is this a Federal responsibility?
I agree with the gentlewoman on a whole host of things she said about the economic impact of the arts and the humanities.
The question is: Should the Federal Government be doing it?
If there is a return on investment, and I agree there is, apparently, it is worthy because in 2022 private industry and private contributions were $24 billion. That is awesome. We ought to encourage that.
Now, maybe $186 million is a drop in the bucket in this bill, and I suspect it is. Where I come from, $186 million is a heck of a lot of money. It is a heck of a lot of money.
Mr. Chairman, if you watch the one millions, the two millions, the five millions, the 100 millions, the 186 millions, then maybe sometimes you can get to the fact that this year we are spending $2.2 trillion more than we are taking in at the Federal level--$2.2 trillion.
Mr. Chairman, you have to start somewhere, and you start with the ones, the tens, the twenties, the hundreds, and the hundred millions. That is where you start.
This is not a Federal responsibility. It should be done by local and State if they want to do it. The Federal Government cannot sustain it and should not sustain it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes $186.3 million in funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities. I will say, yet again, since people in Washington don't seem to care, we are over $33 trillion in debt. We are going to add another $3 trillion here in about less than 2 years.
Let's take a look at the types of projects we are funding through the NEH grants:
$60,000 to study the labor of interpreters in U.N. field missions;
$500,000 to renovate 5,800 square feet of gallery space in the Adirondack Museum to meet ``contemporary museum standards'';
Over $330,000 for compact cabinetry and fixtures for a museum in Richmond, Virginia;
Almost $150,000 to build a comics and social justice curriculum at San Diego State University.
I have a kinship with San Diego. I have been to Richmond; I like it. I am sure the gallery in the Adirondacks and the museum there are very nice, but these are State and local projects. This is not a Federal requirement.
The gentleman from Idaho talked about the small towns and communities I am sure he represents and hopes that the arts and the humanities are there. I hope for the same thing in the little town that I come from, Dillsburg, a rural community that just held the farmers fair, where children, including my daughters, entered their arts stuff to be judged. There was no Federal grant to my kids or any kids in Dillsburg, York, Hershey, Upper Dauphin, or Carlisle.
We all want things for our communities, and we want somebody else to pay for them. It has to end somewhere, and this is a place where we can start. Someone has to be responsible. Nobody is saying we shouldn't have the arts and humanities. I am also not saying that some of these aren't worthwhile projects. I am just saying that our constituents' tax dollars shouldn't be subsidizing them.
If a State or locality wants to fund a local museum renovation or curriculum at a State university, that is between them and their taxpayers.
Mr. Chair, I urge support for my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, let's talk about some other projects. I know the good gentleman from Idaho talked about we are reducing spending, we continue to reduce spending, and we try to do that.
Mr. Chairman, we are going broke saving money around this town. We keep on talking about reducing spending, but somehow--I don't know how it is--when I watch that clock one of my colleagues wears on his lapel, the numbers on the national debt clock continue to get larger. I showed the national debt clock to my daughter one time, and she said, ``What is that?'' I pulled it up online, and I showed it to her. She stared at it, and she said, Well, it never stops.
Mr. Chairman, it doesn't stop. We are going broke saving money.
Here are some more projects:
$60,000 to incorporate diversity, equity, and inclusion concepts and content into humanities general education courses at Thomas Edison State University in Trenton, New Jersey; a wonderful place;
Over $360,000 for diversity, equity, and inclusion programs at the University of Central Oklahoma;
$215,000 to California State University for 25 middle and high school English teachers to study climate futurism, which is storytelling that uses climate science as a catalyst to imagine possible climate futures.
Now, the President has just asked for a supplemental of over $100 billion for wars in Ukraine, Israel, and to process more illegal migrants across our border. We don't have money for that. We are going to borrow money for that, and we are going to borrow money for this.
Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of worthwhile things in the world that we want to be a part of, that we want to pay for. We just don't have the money. We just don't have the money. I would ask that we quit saving money and going broke and pass this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, this amendment prohibits the use of funds to take retaliatory actions against States that fall short of their EPA- mandated pollutant reduction goals. Importantly, this amendment would not prevent the EPA from working with States to restore the Chesapeake Bay.
For context, in 1985, the States in the Chesapeake Bay region recognized the need to address pollutants in the bay, and through their own initiative, came together to conduct clean-up efforts. These State- driven efforts were largely successful. Water quality improved almost 50 percent from 1985 until 2010.
However, in 2010, the EPA seized the States' authority to determine their own method of compliance and threatened to take over the water quality plans if the States failed to comply.
States are not inferior agents to the Federal Government. States are not servants to the Federal Government. This 2010 power grab, known as the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, directly contradicts the intent of the Clean Water Act, directly contradicts it. The Clean Water Act clearly acknowledges State authority in water quality and requires cooperation, not coercion, between the States and the Federal Government.
Now, these coercive methods have been tried and have failed. Water quality has not improved since the federalization of bay clean-up efforts.
It is imperative that we return the rights of the States to make their own water quality decisions and restore the local control that has been shown to improve water quality, to be effective, because the future of the bay depends on it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I remind the gentlewoman and everybody that Pennsylvania and the other States are not ignoring the requirements. As I said, while they were working together without Federal involvement, without the coercive activity of the EPA, water quality was actually improving. It was actually when the Federal Government got involved that things stopped. It hasn't improved since that time. It worked until the Federal Government got involved with their coercive activity, and then it stopped.
This would just allow the States to go back to collaborative efforts, with the Federal Government, with the EPA, without the heavy hand of Damocles' sword hanging over their head trying to force them to do something that apparently and obviously is ineffective. It is ineffective.
We all have the same goal, to clean up the bay. The States have agreed on their own to do this, and they have been effective. What is not effective is the Federal Government's coercive activity. This amendment seeks to remove the ability for that coercive activity so that the requirement is just to work with the States to do what works and works well.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source