Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in favor of my amendment No. 62. It would prohibit funds from being used for the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations within the Department of Energy. I know that…
Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in favor of my amendment No. 62. It would prohibit funds from being used for the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations within the Department of Energy. I know that sounds like a wonderful title and Members think what could be wrong with that. I am going to explain, Mr. Chairman, what is wrong with it.
This Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations is going to have an equitable energy transition. Let's talk in real words about what that means. It means that Americans who don't want this are going to be forced to have this transition, and they are going to be forced into spending their taxpayer dollars for it.
I will point out what Americans are tired of. They are tired of being told what to do by politicians and those in certain positions of power. I think we forget sometimes that Americans don't work for us. The politicians, the Members of Congress, the Members of the Senate, and the President of the United States work for them. So often, we forget that.
What does this all mean, what this Department does, this group of people who supposedly know so much? It means less reliable energy. It means continued higher energy prices. It means less energy independence.
Many of the technologies that this office uses and advocates for rely on countries, particularly China, a country with a track record of human rights violations, such as what goes on in Congo. Mr. Chair, I want everybody to listen to this. That is where modern-day slavery is in effect, forcing hundreds of thousands of Africans to work in subhuman conditions in order to mine the cobalt needed for electric vehicles.
How wrong is that? While we are driving around in our fancy electric vehicles, mostly wealthier folks, these people are scratching the dirt, trying to just survive, and we think that is a good thing. That is not the American way.
It is also important to note, even if my colleagues do believe in it, that America has these resources and is quite blessed with rare earth minerals. This administration continues to prevent our ability to actually mine them, so we depend on China more than ever.
Members couldn't make this stuff up. Members can't believe it, but it is true. It forces us to purchase from China.
It is unfair, unethical, and, I would maintain, un-American to continue forcing to pay this money, to continue forcing taxpayers to subsidize it, to continue forcing Americans to have this shoved down their throats when they don't want it.
We need to end the subsidization of clean energy in this form. Let the marketplace take effect. Let's have the competition. Let's see if nuclear is the best. Let's see if we can really build and supply more solar panels in the United States of America but not rely on other countries.
Eliminating offices like these is a step in the right direction. It is the right thing to do for so many reasons. I have just outlined a few of them.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I respect my colleague, Mr. Fleischmann, tremendously. It is one of those few times we will have to agree to disagree, but I think it is so important that we make a statement here.
There are some good things that office does, but they do so many things that we don't agree with. This is the conundrum that we always find ourselves in in Congress. In order to get a modicum of good things done, we have to vote for the whole package and the whole thing moves forward, and so many of those initiatives are not good, and that is the problem here.
Let's do this right. I believe in nuclear. I believe solar can have a role. I don't believe wind can do well, especially out in the ocean, but the point is, let the marketplace of ideas be the ones that dictate what we should do here. This office does so much that it shouldn't do, yet we are told we have to vote for this because they do a few things we agree with. I respectfully disagree.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, just quickly to wrap it up, we are less energy independent now than we were 4 years ago. I agree we should look at nuclear, look at carbon capture, look at all these things, but don't make us more dependent on other countries.
The wind turbines they want to build in our beautiful oceans are going to make us more dependent on energy from foreign countries. What we are forcing on the American public with the EVs, the electric vehicles, will make us more dependent on China.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in favor of my amendment, No. 63, which would reduce the salary of Director Shah of the Department of Energy's Loan Programs Office to $1.
Director Shah receives the allocation of grants and loans for clean energy initiatives funded through both the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. I voted for the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, so it particularly disturbs me.
As this administration continues to prioritize dubious green initiatives, American energy prices have gone up, not down, our strategic reserves have been depleted, and reliable energy sources are being overlooked in favor of less reliable energy sources.
Mr. Shah has played a critical role in that decline and he has hurt America.
Beyond his advocacy for the Green New Deal, Mr. Shah's conflict of interest and questionable business practices are deeply troubling.
Let me explain. Mr. Shah was the president of Generate Capital. He provided a $100 million loan to Plug Power, a company that develops hydrogen fuel cells.
Later, as director of the Loan Programs Office, Mr. Shah proceeded to give Plug Power a $1.66 billion loan guarantee, but this came from the Department of Energy, our tax dollars. Mr. Chair, it came from your tax dollars and the tax dollars of Americans.
In 2023, Plug Power proceeded to report over $1.3 billion in losses.
This raises serious concerns about Mr. Shah's ability to conduct proper risk assessment and the decisionmaking process that he has as director, as well as concerns over his potential undue influence and favoritism within the loan process for companies he has relationships with.
Again, that is what Americans are tired of. They are tired of the good old boy system. They are tired of money going to people that are connected.
Mr. Shah also approved a $3 billion partial loan guarantee to a company we have heard of: Sunnova. It is a solar company with a history of questionable and aggressive sales tactics and some ethical issues, including pressuring vulnerable customers into expensive, long-term contracts that they didn't want or need.
It highlights another example of Mr. Shah's questionable financial oversight ability, but it also breaches the public trust when such companies receive billions upon billions of dollars that are taxpayer dollars.
Mr. Shah has also admitted under oath--and I want everybody to listen to this one; he said it under oath--he attended paid conferences where he got paid where applicants to the Loan Programs Office were present, and they paid to be there to hear Mr. Shah speak. We have got to wonder about that one.
It raises serious pay-to-play concerns and is another example of his potential conflict of interest playing a role where he allocates loans as the director.
In light of these serious concerns, it is imperative that we take decisive action to restore public trust in government. We work for the public. They don't work for us. We have got to punish bad behavior, and this administration does not.
By passing my amendment, which reduces his salary to $1, Congress will send a clear message that ethical lapses are not tolerated, and conflicts of interest are not tolerated and will not be accepted.
Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I haven't seen any decision or anything that says that it is unconstitutional. I do not agree. I urge people to vote for my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in favor of my amendment No. 64.
This amendment would increase funding at the Department of Energy
to enhance the security of existing electrical transformers from both physical and cyber threats.
Few parts of our Nation's infrastructure are more critical to everyday life and national security than our electrical grid, and it is under an alarming increase in threats over the past several years, as we all know.
In 2022 alone, a decade-high surge in attacks occurred with 101 incidents being reported in August alone. While some of these instances amounted to petty vandalism, some of the threats were serious. They were real. They were coordinated efforts to cause widespread power outages to all of our American citizens.
One such effort in Moore County, North Carolina, left nearly 50,000 people without power after two Duke Energy substations were shot at.
In 2023, extremists plotted to attack multiple energy substations in Maryland with the goal of literally destroying Baltimore.
In Michigan, this year alone, 14 different incidents of gunshot damage to transformers, regulators, and other electrical equipment have occurred.
These are clearly not isolated incidents, Mr. Chair, but rather a concerning and growing trend across the United States of America.
Perpetrators of these attacks have been part of extremist groups, including neo-Nazi groups, and have admitted to seeking to sow unrest and disrupt our infrastructure system to destroy and create anarchy in our country.
While States have begun to act on this issue, it is far past time our Federal Government got involved, ensuring that these critical pieces of infrastructure are secured from all types of threats.
This amendment seeks to build off existing efforts by increasing funding to go toward advancing security measures, increasing our efforts to better detect, deter, and to respond to these attacks.
This is not just a matter of infrastructure improvement. It is an investment in our Nation's security and the well-being of our citizens.
I don't even have to say this, but I will. Electricity is a modern necessity of life. Mr. Chair, this is what the American people want us to do. This is what our job is supposed to be, to make sure that we are safe and secure.
This amendment is a vital step toward protecting it from threats, both domestic and abroad, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman's remarks. However, I respectfully disagree. We are moving from one account, which is basically forcing people to accept something that they do not want and have clearly said that does not help America.
I also respectfully will disagree with her that we are not showing American leadership. Maybe it is Chinese leadership or foreign countries leadership. We are not energy independent now. We were. We can be unbelievably energy independent. We can export energy and not only fossil fuels.
Americans lead. Americans are great. Americans have the ability to ensure that our country is number one. There is nothing wrong with American exceptionalism and being the best and doing the most.
This is part of it. We have to make sure that we do what really truly helps the American public, which is to make sure that we are safe and secure and not forcing them to accept something that is going to be very expensive and cause us to rely on foreign countries more than we ever have in our American history of entrepreneurship and exceptionalism.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.