Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2025
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PERRY. Madam Chairman, this amendment prohibits the use of funds to implement or enforce the DRBC's rule to ban hydraulic fracturing within the Delaware River Basin. The best way to combat high natural gas prices that all of us are paying is to produce more natural gas in America, not less.
In places like my home, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the second largest natural gas producer in the Nation, it is unfortunate that unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats at the Delaware River Basin Commission have instituted a hydraulic fracturing ban for a portion of our State, our Commonwealth, stripping away, at the stroke of a pen, property and mineral rights from Pennsylvanians in contravention of the will of their own legislature. These aren't elected officials. These are folks who just have a different idea and have the authority to take.
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 the mineral rights of Pennsylvania. That is the result.
To be clear, this amendment simply prohibits the DRBC from implementing or enforcing this hydraulic fracturing ban, but it does not impact the ability of the States in the river basin to regulate hydraulic fracturing as they see fit.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PERRY. Madam Chair, during previous debates on this issue, mistruths were spread about the impact of this policy change on the water reservoirs that serve New York City. These claims are false and easily disproved by the facts, which I am going to lay out right now.
The safety of hydraulic fracturing has been demonstrated through its extensive use across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and across the country, not only over the past two decades but for multiple decades.
The Obama-era EPA--not the current one and not the last one, but the Obama-era EPA--determined that the practice did not pose a threat to drinking water. Simple geography and hydrology make this outcome an impossibility. All New York City reservoirs are upriver from Pennsylvania or on the Hudson River, which does not connect to Pennsylvania, precluding any impact from Pennsylvania from reaching those reservoirs.
The intention of this amendment and its primary impact will be unleashing Pennsylvania's full energy potential by allowing Pennsylvanians in the river basin that they live in to use their property that they bought with their money and their mineral rights that they bought with their money as they see fit, subject to the laws passed by their elected officials, not by some bureaucrat from some other State.
It is time to stop this underhanded attack on property rights, representative government, and State sovereignty and restore American energy security at the same time. Opposition to this amendment essentially is saying my colleagues support a ban on hydraulic fracturing and for higher natural gas prices for Members' constituents.
Madam Chair, I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PERRY. Madam Chair, this amendment would eliminate funding for administrative expenses necessary for the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, which provides loans to companies that make Green New Deal cars, and to manufacture so-called advanced technology vehicles and qualifying components, like car manufacturers in this country need an infusion of cash from taxpayers that are buying their cars.
This law recklessly spends over $1 trillion, ignoring the fact that the national debt is now $35 trillion and will likely be $36 trillion by the end of this year. The package also includes almost $8 billion in subsidies for electric vehicle chargers, even though profit incentives have driven private actors in the auto industry, independent startups, and utilities across the country to rush to build charging stations on their own. We don't have to subsidize this.
Car dealerships are having trouble moving electric vehicles. Do you know how I know, Madam Chair? Because they come in and tell me, and they beg me to do something about it. They can't get these vehicles off their lots. There is no need to continue throwing good money after bad, coercing private companies to manufacture Green New Deal vehicles that our citizens do not want.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PERRY. Madam Chair, many have supported this program, but in recent years, it is even more egregious. Recent legislation removed the $25 billion cap on loan authority. While some folks say, well, the loans are all out and we just need to administer them, the cap on loan authority has now opened up. It has opened up the program not just to light-duty vehicle manufacturers, but to medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, trains, and maritime vessels.
What do you think is going to happen when the government is handing out money without a cap on it?
You know what is going to happen, Madam Chair. You go from $35 trillion to $36 trillion, and the debt just keeps on climbing a trillion dollars every 100 days.
I know there are people that want this money. Everybody wants government money, but the people that live in this country that pay the bill can no longer afford it.
Madam Chair, I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PERRY. Madam Chair, the Federal loan guarantee program is exactly what it says. They are loans that are guaranteed by the Federal Government. Of course, that just transfers the risk of those loans to the taxpayers.
As with any government subsidy, they reduce the market discipline of loan recipients. Recipients get the loan, they know the Federal Government is going to pay the bill if it fails, and when it fails that is exactly what happens.
Now there is a checkered past in the Department of Energy's Loan Guarantee Program, and it demonstrates that it is not immune from these concerns. As it currently stands today, it hasn't been reformed; it hasn't been revamped. We are just going to keep on loaning money. Among the most egregious examples of title 17 loan failures are Solyndra, Fisker Automotive, and A123 Systems. All three entities received hundreds of millions of dollars in loan guarantees before filing for bankruptcy and leaving the taxpayer holding the bag.
They filed for bankruptcy, by the way, because they produced things that the American people didn't want but were forced on them. To add insult to injury, A123 Systems and Fisker Automotive were purchased by, you guessed it, Chinese companies for pennies on the dollar.
You pay the bill; they get the money. Meaning, the CCP, the Communist Party of China, was the ultimate beneficiary of our tax dollars and the good people that are working hard every day to pay those loans.
Both companies also received subsidies from the Michigan State government under then-Governor Jennifer Granholm.
Now, you might not care about that because it was in Michigan. Maybe you don't live in Michigan where Fisker Automotive and A123 Systems were located, went bankrupt, took your money, and then were sold to the Chinese, but the integrity of these programs is heightened by the fact that Secretary of Energy Granholm's leadership position is now at that Department and will oversee these loans.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PERRY. Madam Chair, I must disagree. The so-called Inflation Reduction Act, I don't know if anyone's keeping score, but when I go to the grocery store since the Inflation Reduction Act, prices are higher. When I go to the gas station, prices are higher. It hasn't really reduced inflation, but that is another story.
Since the Inflation Reduction Act provides approximately $11.7 billion for the loan program office to issue new loans, we are going to keep going. We are going to burden the taxpayer with the potential for these loans to go bad, and they have gone bad.
This additional funding raises significant concerns that the program will, once again, be used as a piggy bank for any administration and the Secretary to reward politically-favored industries.
Madam Chair, my bosses, my constituents, can't afford this continued grifting. We have to stop the gravy train for these failed green energy companies on the backs of taxpayers. If private industry wants to invest, God bless them, but the taxpayers shouldn't be forced to.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PERRY. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PERRY. Madam Chair, continue to invest. Continue to invest. It is going to continue unless this amendment passes. We are going to keep throwing good money after bad.
We are going to continue to invest in Chinese slave labor. It needs to be understood that the material that makes these batteries--even though the material that comes to the United States of America, we don't produce any of our own material here; it is not allowed--is going to come from slave labor in China.
If that is not bad enough, the raw material is going to come from child slave labor in Africa promoted by the Chinese. You are going to continue to invest because you are going to be forced to continue to invest in them.
This is an easy one, Madam Chair. The American people are sick of investing in these things that are immoral and unaffordable. I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PERRY. Madam Chair, this amendment cuts $35 million from this bill for the Appalachian Regional Commission, lowering the funding level in this bill to $165 million.
The IIJA provided the Appalachian Regional Commission with an advanced appropriation of $200 million every single year, the entirety of its authorization level for fiscal year 2022 through 2026, meaning every dollar provided under this bill is more than the authorized level.
This Congress said this is the level at which you can spend. We are spending way above that. In other words, under this amendment, the ARC would still receive $365 million for the fiscal year rather than $400 million provided by the underlying bill.
Even with this minimal cut under this amendment, the program's funding is still extremely bloated, and its effectiveness remains unclear. It doesn't really remain unclear. It is completely unknown. I know. I sat in and presided over the hearing regarding this commission and all the commissions where, literally, the metric they use to determine success was we get loan applications. People want to receive loans and grants. That is their measure of success.
Where I live in Pennsylvania, the Appalachian Trail comes right through the district, and people in Appalachia certainly sorely need help, but they don't need a bunch of throwaway things from contractors outside of their area coming in to make a bunch of money off the government and leave them with whatever is left over.
This commission's programs are duplicative of other Federal development economic programs and are better addressed at the State and local levels where those States know exactly what is needed.
In fact, the FY18 budget justification identified the Appalachian Regional Commission failed to show a strong link between grants and a positive impact on the community they serve. They are giving out money, but they can't justify any of it through metrics or through any performance evaluation whatsoever.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, that might be all well and good, but last year, the commission's inspector general--not Perry, not this Congress, the inspector general identified the massive increase in the commission's funding over recent years as a threat to its ability to evaluate grant proposals, measure program performance, and conduct appropriate oversight, meaning this spike in funding threatens to worsen an already tenuous link between funding and success.
Mr. Chair, these commissions are populated by the politically connected to hand out money to those that are connected to them. That is what they are for. That is what they do. They don't do much else other than that, and they are certainly no measure of success.
Again, I presided over the hearing where we asked them for their metric, their measure of success. Again, Mr. Chair, it was that they received a lot of applications for grants and loans.
People want money. That is your measure of success? That is pathetic. We certainly must bring the funding level for the ARC down to ensure that it has the capacity to ensure if you are going to spend the money--I am not getting rid of the commission. I am just saying if you are going to spend the money, let's do it wisely and actually prove that it does something to help the people that you allegedly are helping as opposed to the people that sit on the commission and dole out the tax dollars.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, since 1965, which is a long time ago now, they say the poverty rate has been cut in half, but the general poverty rate across the country has been cut in half since 1965. The general rate. None of that can be attributed to the ARC.
By the way, the map that we had provided by the ARC at the hearing showed one county in all of the region, in all of the States had improved. One. This is not a cut.
As a result of the IIJA, it is well above what they were supposed to be appropriated, and everyone in here knows it. Everyone knows it, but they will take the money anyhow.
I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment reduces the funding to the Delta Regional Commission by $6.1 million, back to the FY19 level. In FY17, the Obama administration sought to cut funding for the Delta Regional Commission by $3 million. The FY18, FY19, FY20, and FY21 budgets all sought to eliminate funding for the Delta Regional Commission, identifying it as duplicative of other Federal economic development programs.
Where have we heard that before?
The FY21 budget pointed out that the Delta Regional Commission, like others, is set aside for special geographic designations rather than applied across the country, based on objective criteria indicating local areas' levels of distress.
Well, that is what States are for. That is not the Federal Government. If you don't live there, this isn't going to help you at all, but you are going to pay for it.
We are $35 trillion in debt, Mr. Chair. We simply can't continue to allow for the rapid growth of parochial commissions. They probably do wonderful things for the people that are there, probably, but they duplicate other Federal programs, and they continue undeterred. Federal programs that are likely doing the work that States and local governments should be doing.
We wonder how did we get to $35 trillion in debt? Well, I don't know. Everybody got a commission, a handout, money. At a minimum, we should return the funding of this program to prepandemic FY19 levels. We need to find somewhere in this budget some sanity, so that our taxpayers aren't footing the bill for things they can't afford to pay for.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, this actually does reduce the spending. This is actually an amendment that does reduce spending. As far as the FRA is concerned, my goodness, just saying it meets FRA, well, FRA spends more than last year. Every year we spend more than the year before. We never see a year where we actually cut any spending.
Maybe this is a small account. Mr. Chair, $6 million is pretty small in the face of trillions of dollars and billions of dollars, I agree. We have got to start somewhere.
Again, the FY18, FY19, FY20, and FY21 budgets all sought to eliminate funding for the Delta Regional Commission, eliminate it. Not me. That is what the budget wanted to do then. I am saying in 2024, let's just reduce it to FY19 and try to live within our means, just like my bosses and your bosses and our bosses have to do at home. They don't get more money every single year regardless of what happens.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, 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 reduces funding for the Denali Commission by $2 million, to the FY19 prepandemic level.
The Denali Commission's mission of providing job training and other economic development services in rural Alaska can better be served by the 29 other Federal programs with which it duplicates. There are 29 other programs doing this.
The Obama administration sought to eliminate funding for the commission in FY12 because it was duplicative and did not select projects based on competition or merit. Again, we are just handing out money, but we have a fancy name.
In 2013, the inspector general for the Denali Commission called for the elimination of the program. The elimination of the program. I am just saying, let's take it to FY19, $2 million. The inspector general stated that he recommended that Congress put its money elsewhere.
Well, it is not our money. It is their money. It is our bosses' money. You might go to Alaska. I don't know if you need a job training program if you go there. Maybe if you plan to go, you should--well, that is another story. The Trump administration, likewise, sought to eliminate the commission in FY18, FY19, FY20, and FY21.
Again, it seems imprudent to continually fund yet another parochial commission in the face of two administrations. It seems like that to me; it might not to you, but these are both parties. People say, well, you folks up there can't get along, can't agree on anything. Well, here two parties on either side of the aisle said the same thing, and the inspector general's recommendations were that we cease funding.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, at a bare minimum, we should pass this amendment just to keep the Denali Commission where it is, at its pre COVID-19 level, and not allow for its continued growth in the face of trillions of dollars of debt while our people can't afford gas, groceries, daycare, their electricity bills.
Mr. Chair, I urge adoption, and 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, I rise to offer my amendment to reduce funding for the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, the SCRC, to prepandemic, fiscal year 2019 levels.
Yet again, this commission serves as a duplicative slush fund for parochial interests, this time for projects in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. I have many friends in those locations.
From FY 2010 to FY 2020, the SCRC received $250,000 annually, all without having an appointed Federal co-chair. There was nobody in charge. There was nobody running the thing, but they still got $250,000. I know in the face of trillions, $250,000 isn't much. Where I come from, my bosses would love to have $250,000 every single year and not have to account for it because nobody is in charge.
After a co-chair was appointed in December 2021--again, conveniently, with close ties to political leadership--the number is now a whopping $20 million in this bill. From $250,000 with nobody in charge to somebody politically connected to $20 million.
There is absolutely no reason for that dramatic increase in funding-- well, there is one, but you are probably not going to like it-- especially when these projects fund both projects with no national nexus, like electric vehicle charging stations.
We have to have a regional commission to do that? We just had an amendment where you are telling me the Department of Energy has got to pay for that, but now the regional commission pays for that also.
In addition to the charging stations, they also fund stormwater management and green infrastructure. Stormwater management is a problem, I am sure, in every State, but here again, is that the Federal Government's role? According to the SCRC's 2023-2027 strategic plan, that is what they are going to spend the money on.
Our constituents, our bosses, do not have money for these projects that have no impact on their lives, and in many cases drive up the cost of living for them.
Mr. Chair, I urge support of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PERRY. Again, Mr. Chair, we are just spending dollars. This government agency, this program does it, and here is another one. The last, the Denali Commission, there were 29 separate programs. This is not much different. I didn't count them up, but I assure you, there are other Federal programs that do the same thing. A question that hasn't been answered here is: Is it the role of the Federal Government?
I ask my bosses, my constituents, the people on this floor how many gas stations did they pay for through Federal appropriations? There are a bunch of gas stations around the country, everyone stops at them, we know their names. We bought them because we bought gasoline. Somebody invested in that, and we bought gasoline, and that paid for it, but in this case, we are going to pay for electric vehicle charging stations through our taxes, whether or not we have an electric vehicle. Whether or not that vehicle pays any highway taxes, we are going to pay for it.
Mr. Chair, I urge adoption, and 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, I rise to offer this amendment to reduce funding for the Northern Border Regional Commission, or the NBRC, to prepandemic fiscal year 2019 levels.
Like other regional commissions, the NBRC provides economic development assistance to projects in various States, in this case, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont.
I don't know if you are seeing a theme here. You want extra money from the Federal Government, and you are not getting enough, just create a commission. Get your buddies in other States to create a commission, and in comes the money.
These commissions simply serve as a slush fund for parochial and regional projects with little or actually no national nexus. They don't belong in the purview of the Federal government. They belong in State and local governments.
Let's take a look at some of the funded programs taken from the 2022 annual report, which is the latest report available, 2022:
$304,000 to purchase a sound system for an auditorium in New Hampshire. I am sure it is wonderful. If I get to New Hampshire, maybe I will get to hear it, but in the meantime I am going to pay for it, and so are you.
Over $350,000 to expand rail yard capacity in upstate New York. I don't know, I am paying for freight costs. We have all kinds of incentives for railroads in this country. I know, Mr. Chair, I am on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. We have $350,000 coming from this commission to pay for that, as well.
Another $350,000 for a sailing center on Lake Champlain. I am sure it is wonderful. I am sure it is lovely. I live in Pennsylvania. I am not getting up to the lake too often.
These projects are all well and good. Some of them ought to be funded by private investment and others should be funded by States or localities.
Mr. Chair, our taxpayers are broke, and our country is broke. Somebody has to do something about it. Somebody has to make the hard decisions.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, instead of pandering to special interest groups, we have got to pare back these wasteful programs that oftentimes serve as a boondoggle for a limited number of folks in a limited location.
This amendment does not zero out the commission's funding. It doesn't say we have got to get rid of the commission. Other administrations have done that. This doesn't say that. It simply reduces the funding to pre-COVID, pre-Biden spending levels where, quite honestly, most of our bosses, our constituents are living. That is where their paychecks are. They are back there, and we are up here, taking their money and spending it on things that are already being spent on that should be spent by somebody else.
They should be attached to accountability at State and local elected officials, but they are not. They are attached to regional commissions that most people don't know who exist, have no idea who runs them or what they do.
Mr. Chair, 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, I am going to sound like a broken record here, so I will keep it short. I am not picking winners and losers or favorites here. First, the Great Lakes Authority has only been authorized since 2022. It is 2024 now. It still does not have a Federal co-chair. It has no website. It has no programs funded. There is nobody there.
Yet, strangely, it is still receiving Federal dollars, to the tune of $5 million, for projects supposedly in the watershed regions of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. I don't know because there is no one to ask.
Mr. Chair, we have seen how other commissions have gone. President Trump urged the elimination of three of them, and President Obama recommended cuts and elimination for the Denali Commission, making it bipartisan.
With that level of bipartisan criticism of existing commissions, I don't see why we need to dig ourselves even deeper with yet another commission. My goodness, Pennsylvania is covered by two of them. That is my home State. You have to call the balls and strikes.
I know people in this building will scoff at the difference between $2.5 million and $5 million. We are saying $2.5 million, which is pretty bad for me. I am saying to spend $2.5 million on a commission that doesn't have a co-chair, has no website, and has no programs funded, not $5 million.
It is still $2.5 million being sent to who knows where for who knows what, but it is $2.5 million less going toward a commission that cannot even begin operations without any Senate-confirmed Federal co-chair.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, with all due respect, Pennsylvania can handle itself. We don't need some commission to do our work. We understand where the water from Lake Erie goes, to the Great Lakes. We understand it is complex.
I looked at the list, and I have been to all of these States. I would be happy to meet with the Federal co-chair, but there isn't one. There isn't any. I would be happy to see what they are doing, but that person doesn't exist.
Do you know what exists? Millions of dollars going to this organization where there isn't anybody there. That is what exists. That is what we are trying to rectify. We are not even saying take all of it. Just take some of it so we don't spend as much on an organization with no website, no co-chair, no plan.
All of us know it is not going to stop at $5 million for this commission, just like the rest. It will all balloon up to tens of millions of dollars if Congress, using the power of the purse, doesn't put its foot down.
I love Pennsylvania. I love my home State. We want to handle our business. We don't need unelected bureaucrats not from Pennsylvania telling us how to do things in Pennsylvania. That is what they are going to do with this.
Mr. Chair, I urge adoption, and 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, I know you can't believe it, but there is one left. Like I said, we are equal opportunity here. We are going to take a look at all of them.
This amendment would halve the funding of the Southwest Border Regional Commission. This commission, which only had its first chairman confirmed in 2022 and was funded only starting in fiscal year 2021, funds projects in the southern border regions of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas.
Incidentally, the first chairman was previously the director of economic development and special initiatives for Senator Heinrich, which continues this theme of political connection to the chairmen of these regional commissions.
I don't know if everyone is getting that, but I bet those not appointed to the regional commission who live in those States get it.
Look, I know folks on the other side of the aisle care about the border. Well, I hope they do. I know our side sure does.
However, the answer to solving border problems is to actually enforce our Nation's immigration laws, not to give $5 million to a commission that has not published a strategic plan and does not even appear to have a website.
We are going to give $5 million to them to fix the border. We can't even fix it at the Federal level. Well, we can, but we refuse to. The commission received $250,000 in FY21 but is now being funded at $5 million in this bill for FY24. For what results? If they are there to fix the border, I would argue they have done a pretty poor job, but we are going from $250,000 to $5 million.
This amendment doesn't get rid of the commission. That argument can be made, but this amendment just says we are going to take it from $5 million to a still exorbitant $2.5 million.
I suspect we are going to hear from some of my colleagues from Texas about how they want to use this opportunity to fix the border, but this regional commission isn't the answer.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, for all the reasons so stated amendment after amendment with all of these commissions duplicating Federal programs, which are specious to begin with, again, it is irrelevant to regions of the country or commissions. I am not picking on one as opposed to another, not trying to pick the winners and losers.
Our citizens can't afford their bills. This Federal Government can't afford its bills. Every dollar that we are talking about in this appropriations bill, every single dollar, is borrowed money.
Let's not borrow as much. Let's not borrow $2.5 million as much. That is all this is saying. Still borrow a whole bunch, all of it as a matter of fact, but just not $2.5 million more.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source