Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, this amendment prohibits the use of funds to implement or enforce the Delaware River Basin Commission's rule to ban hydraulic fracturing within the Delaware River Basin.

The best way to combat high energy prices is to produce more energy in America and in places like my own Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the second largest natural gas producer in the Nation.

Unfortunately, unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats at the Delaware River Basin Commission have instituted a hydraulic fracturing ban for a portion of the State of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, stripping away property and mineral rights from Pennsylvanians in contravention of the will of the State's own legislature.

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 Pennsylvanians, all while keeping prices high.

To be clear, this amendment simply prohibits the Delaware River Basin Commission from implementing or enforcing its hydraulic fracturing ban but does not impact the ability of the States in the Delaware River Basin Commission to regulate hydraulic fracturing as they see fit.

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 disproven by the facts.

The safety of hydraulic fracturing has been demonstrated through its extensive use across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and across the country for decades now.

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 of New York City reservoirs are upriver from Pennsylvania or on the Hudson River, which does not connect to Pennsylvania, precluding any impact in Pennsylvania from reaching these reservoirs.

Mr. Chair, the intention of this amendment and its primary impact will be unleashing Pennsylvania's full energy potential by allowing Pennsylvanians in the river basin to use their property and mineral rights as they see fit as free Americans, subject to the laws passed by their elected Representatives.

It is time to stop this underhanded attack on property rights, representative government, and State sovereignty and restore American security. Opposition to this amendment is support for the hydraulic fracturing ban and for higher energy, in particular, natural gas prices for our constituents.

Mr. Chair, I urge passage of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I have done my homework for years now, and it is the same song every time because nothing changes. While I agree with the gentlewoman from Ohio--she does know something about this and, of course, it is allowed in Ohio, but she said that it is not appropriate to overrule regional and local governments, but that is exactly what the DRBC does. It overrules regional and local government.

By the way, it overrules the Commonwealth Government. While the Governor has a say, there are four other voting members who can overrule that Governor. Quite honestly, what we don't need is somebody from another State telling us how to run our business.

There is no political accountability. We don't vote for people in Delaware, New Jersey, and New York. They are wonderful people, and we appreciate them, but our job is to represent Pennsylvania. That is what I am doing. Pennsylvanians want to have access to their land and to their mineral rights, and they should have it, not unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.

Mr. Chair, I urge passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment eliminates earmarked funding for the Delaware River Basin Commission.

Unfortunately, this bill includes an earmark providing nearly three- quarters of a million dollars to the Delaware River Basin Commission, marking just the third time the Federal Government has provided the DRBC funding since 1998.

The unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats at the DRBC have unilaterally instituted a hydraulic fracturing ban for a portion of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, stripping away property and mineral rights from Pennsylvanians in direct contravention of the will of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth's legislature.

The result is a prohibition on the development of critical shale plays in eastern Pennsylvania that can bring desperately needed natural gas to the market and the unconstitutional taking of the mineral rights of American citizens.

This attack on Pennsylvania energy and American energy is at a time when residential natural gas prices are near record highs, and my friends on the other side of the aisle literally run ads saying that I increase their energy prices while they do it every single day and they are just about ready to do it again.

It creates significant inflation for my constituents and the constituents of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and it empowers our enemies abroad.

The earmark in this bill rewards the radical commissioners with money from the very taxpayers and ratepayers the DRBC is attacking.

Providing funds to such an out-of-control, radical commission is a step in the wrong direction that incentivizes others to follow its lead, and it keeps our energy costs high.

This amendment would prohibit Federal funding for the DRBC, ensuring that we do not further incentivize this commission to attack American energy and the rights of Pennsylvania's citizens.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PERRY. Will the gentlewoman yield?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PERRY. That is correct.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, the community funding process, just understand if you are not familiar with congressional jargon, that equals earmark. That is three-quarters of a million dollars to this organization that heretofore hasn't needed the money because they extort members of the States that they exist in all kinds of fees, applications, and licensing agreements from townships and other municipalities for private individuals. That is how they are paid for. Yet now we are going to pay three-quarters of a million dollars from the Federal Government when we are $37 trillion in debt.

While I am happy to agree that we should test the effluent, I am good with that, but apparently we don't care about the effluent from Ohio to Pennsylvania or from Pennsylvania to Ohio where we conduct the same activity. Oh, by the way, there have been no cases of any issue where hydraulic fracturing caused some effluent issue that I know of or that I imagine my counterpart on the other side of the aisle can speak to.

As a matter of fact, I said that the Obama-era EPA said that it was completely safe.

While I agree that we should do those things, and if there is a problem we absolutely have to get after it, but we are just throwing money at this thing when there is no evidence that there is a problem. There is zero evidence that there is a problem, number one, and there is zero evidence that they need any of this money, but there is $37 trillion of evidence that we don't have the money to pay for it.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would eliminate funding for the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, or ARPA-E, program.

Modeled after the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, known as DARPA, the agency funds research and development of advanced energy technologies.

It sounds like a noble goal.

Despite a purported goal to identify and promote revolutionary advances in energy, the agency is more focused on misguided, ineffective climate and so-called green priorities.

For years, ARPA-E has drifted from its mission and provided grants to companies and projects that are neither high risk nor something that the private sector cannot and does not support.

Among recent awards, ARPA-E has supported the Net-Zero Game Changers Initiative, which is subsidizing climate-warming refrigerants and Jetsons-style electrification of aviation.

With all due respect, as a member of the Transportation Committee, if they want to electrify aviation, God bless them. Let them and the Wright brothers from the gentlewoman's great State of Ohio invest. It is always better when the private sector invests. It is always more efficient, and the outcomes are always better.

The Trump administration has also called for the elimination of this program, and rightly so, recognizing the private sector's primary role in taking risks to commercialize breakthrough energy technologies with actual, real market potential, not made-up ones by the good idea fairy from the Federal Government.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I certainly appreciate the chairman's view. I think his view is actually the same as mine, recognizing that it has already had a 24 percent reduction. Quite honestly, that is great that it has produced all of these patents, but wouldn't it be better if the private sector produced those patents? Right now, the American taxpayer is paying for those patents, but you know who is not getting any of the money, the royalties, or the licensing for those patents? The very taxpayers who pay the bill.

Again, I get that many see this as a great jobs program, and it provides a lot of great things for America, but those things should be provided by the private sector because we simply cannot afford to pay for all of this stuff. Something has to give.

The private sector wants to make money. It wants to get patents. It wants to license things. Good for them. They should do it. The American taxpayer doesn't want to pay for it. If they are paying for it, where is the return on the investment?

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, this amendment eliminates funding for the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program and transfers that savings to spending reduction. This is another wasteful, so-called green energy handout program that should be and must be eliminated.

The ATVM Loan Program has been plagued by a failure to produce viable products, political favoritism, inefficient use of taxpayer funds, a failure to create promised jobs, and a significant potential for fraud and misrepresentation.

Unfortunately, this is to be expected from this kind of program. The very nature of the program ensures that it will be the government selecting winners and losers based on political considerations, as opposed to actual marketable technologies.

Instead, we can and must empower the market to provide consumers with products they actually want rather than forcing them to adapt to whatever technology the bureaucrats and good idea fairies in Washington, D.C., think they want or demand that they want.

Despite the massive amount of subsidies provided through this program and others to electric vehicles, it is clear that the majority of the American people do not want them.

The government-funded EV bubble appears to be deflating. The truth is, 98 percent of all cars on the road today are gas-powered, and 97 percent of all annual car purchases are gas-powered.

I am not against EVs. If you want to buy one, God bless you, go buy one. It is just that the Federal Government should not be involved in it. What is the proper role of the Federal Government in buying your car? I submit it is not the proper role.

Despite literally paying folks to produce and buy these cars, overall market penetration has been minimal, sales are slowing, and consumer sentiment is moving away from EVs.

According to McKinsey & Company, the place where the last Secretary of Transportation worked, 46 percent of current battery electric vehicle owners are likely going back to internal combustion engine vehicles for their next purchase.

Consumer Reports found EVs to be associated with 79 percent more problems than conventional vehicles. It is absolutely clear that this program has failed, and we need to stop the forcing of Americans to transition to EVs, even though we think that they should and they don't want to.

It is long past time to finally bring an end to the green new scam and defund this misguided program, as well as all the other DOE loan programs that pick winners and losers based on politics rather than markets.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PERRY. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PERRY. Madam Chair, the gentlewoman from Ohio and I certainly agree that we shouldn't be forced to buy things for vehicles that we don't want. They are heavier. They are more technologically sensitive. I mean, you are essentially driving a computer around. Like the gentlewoman said, when it breaks, you are paying through the teeth for the whole thing. We certainly agree on that.

Yet, Madam Chair, that is all being forced on us by Washington, D.C. It comes out of this town. That requirement and those mandates come from this town.

To the 40,000 jobs that this supports, Americans are great at building cars. I don't care whether you drive a hybrid, an electric vehicle, or a traditionally powered vehicle, including diesel. That should be your business. Yet, this picks the winner and says: You are going to drive an electric vehicle, subsidizes it, subsidizes the manufacture of it, and then subsidizes the purchase of it.

Madam Chair, no one is subsidizing the purchase of my vehicle. It has 340,000 miles on it.

Even Elon--I talked to him, once a darling of the left, now much supported by the right--agrees that there should be no subsidies for these vehicles. He doesn't want subsidies on anything, and I agree with him on that.

As far as being in competition with China, unfortunately, China provides the vast majority of what makes these vehicles work. We are buying this stuff from our enemies. Let's buy it from Americans and let Americans determine what they want. What they have said is that they don't want EVs forced down their throats.

If they want to buy one, they can buy one. If they don't, then they can buy whatever they want. I am just saying that the government shouldn't be involved in paying for it. It is not fair to people who don't buy them and have to pay for them anyhow.

Madam Chair, I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PERRY. Madam Chair, Federal loan guarantee programs transfer the risk of the loans to the taxpayer, pure and simple. As with any government subsidy, they reduce market discipline of loan recipients. You are not worried if you are getting a loan because the taxpayers are going to pay it. You don't care whether you produce anything or not.

The checkered past of the DOE's loan guarantee program demonstrates that it is not immune from these concerns. 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, paid for by the taxpayer, before filing for bankruptcy and leaving the taxpayer holding the bag and getting nothing for it.

To add insult to injury, A123 Systems and Fisker Automotive were purchased by Chinese companies for pennies on the dollar. The taxpayers paid, and China was enriched, meaning the CCP was the ultimate beneficiary.

Madam Chair, this is crazy that we are even talking about this. What government supports another government that says that they are your enemy or that you are their enemy? China has said that we are their enemy. Yet, we are selling them, at pennies on the dollar, these taxpayer subsidized failures. It is outrageous.

Madam Chair, the so-called Inflation Reduction Act provides for approximately $11.7 billion for the Loan Program Office to issue new loans. This additional funding raises significant concerns that the program will, once again, be used as a piggy bank for energy sources and vehicles that the American people don't want and that drive up costs to consumers.

People will ask why everything costs so much. It is because we are subsidizing it. When you are guaranteeing the loan and the loan fails and you are on the hook for it, the American taxpayer doesn't know that they cosigned these loans, but they did.

Like I said, to add insult to injury, then China gets the place. It is unbelievable that we should even have this conversation, but we do.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PERRY. Madam Chair, I certainly respect the chairman of the committee and his views, and I say this: Next year, when I offer this amendment, I will leave some room in there for administrative purposes to oversee the loans that are already out there. That is a fair argument.

Yet, I would say this, too: I am the proud Representative of Three Mile Island, which is going to be reopened without any government assistance. It is privately owned. They made a deal with Microsoft, which just proves the point.

The American taxpayer already pays the rates for electricity. They are already paying the investors for the investment in nuclear, and I am a great supporter of nuclear. I just don't think it should be the position of the Federal Government to take money out of people's pockets to pay for these things.

Madam Chair, maybe you live in an area where you are not serviced by nuclear power. Maybe you live in south central Pennsylvania where Three Mile Island is going to reopen, but all the money and all the power is going to go to Microsoft. Why should the consumer pay for that?

I am sorry. We have figured out how to do nuclear power and do it well in the United States of America. Quite honestly, probably one of the only times it is screwed up is when the Federal Government gets involved with it. I understand the chairman's position and I appreciate it.

Madam Chair, I still urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PERRY. Madam Chair, I rise to offer this amendment to reduce funding for the Northern Border Regional Commission, or the NBRC, to fiscal year 2019 levels.

We are changing up here a little bit. We are looking for ways to reduce spending so the American people can keep their money, so we don't have to go further into debt. This is just another unnecessary, redundant program. Like the other regional commissions, the NBRC provides economic development assistance to projects in various States, in this case, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont.

These commissions simply serve as a slush fund for parochial and regional projects with little to no national nexus. There is no Federal connection to these things.

Let's take a look at some of the funded programs taken from the 2022 annual report, which is the latest one available: $304,000 to purchase a sound system for an auditorium in New Hampshire, over $350,000 to expand rail yard capacity in upstate New York, another $350,000 for a sailing center on Lake Champlain.

Madam Chair, these projects are probably awesome. They are probably all great. Some of them ought to be funded by private investments and others should be funded by States or localities. Instead of pandering to special interest groups, we must pare back these wasteful programs that only serve as a boondoggle for a limited slice of Americans.

The sailing center on Lake Champlain sounds awesome, but most south central Pennsylvanians aren't going there, but they are paying for it. They get to pay.

Let's be clear: This amendment does not zero out the commission's funding. It simply reduces the funding to pre-pandemic, pre-Biden spending levels.

I think most people agree we are spending too much money. Let's start there and see how we can do better.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PERRY. I will get to that one later.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PERRY. Madam Chair, I certainly appreciate the gentlewoman's arguments. I just say that there is a guy named ``Friedman'' who was traveling overseas. He came upon a public works project. Everybody was down in the ditch with shovels digging--many men digging with shovels, and he said to the person running the thing: What is with all of the shovels? Why don't you buy them some equipment so they can get this work done faster? The guy said: This produces a lot of jobs.

Mr. Friedman said: Why don't you give them all teaspoons instead and you can have even more jobs, or at least the job can last longer.

Of course, throwing money around produces jobs. As far as it being infrastructure, a sound system for an auditorium, while it is infrastructure, I don't think--many people think of infrastructure as roads, bridges, airports, ports, things like that, not a sound system or a sailing center. Those are nice things to have, but those are parochial. Those are local interests that should be provided at least by the State, not the people in the Federal Government. We have lost sight of the role of the Federal Government, which is why this amendment is in order.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment to halve the funding for the Southwest Border Regional Commission, again trying to save some money by not spending money on redundant things.

Yet again, this commission serves as a duplicative slush fund for parochial interests, this time for projects in the southern border regions of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas.

This commission only had its first chairman confirmed in 2022 and was only funded starting in fiscal year 2021, so it is relatively recent.

Look, I know folks on this side of the aisle care about the border. I imagine and hope that folks on the other side of the aisle care about the border. However, the answer to solving the border problems is to actually enforce our Nation's immigration laws, not to give $4 million to a commission that does not even appear to have an operational website.

By the way, this current administration, the Trump administration, is handling the border, so we don't need to waste another $4 million on this commission.

The commission received $250,000 in FY21 but is now being funded at $4 million in this bill for zero results.

Can anybody show or tell me what the results of this commission are?

Again, this amendment simply strikes this figure in half, so even though it is wasteful and useless generally speaking, I am only taking away half, which is still $2 million.

I don't care whether you are from Ohio or south central Pennsylvania, $2 million is a lot of money.

Mr. Chair, I urge support of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, of course, all these States--Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas--are on the border. If we are funding this organization to deal with the border, I don't know what to say other than it is duplicative. If you disagree with that, I am not sure what to say to anybody about that.

I have been to each one of these States, and of course, people who own a bakery want a parking lot. I had a business, too, and I wanted trucks and employees, and I needed tools. Do you know what I didn't do? I didn't go to the Federal Government for that. I sucked it up and paid into my business from the money that I made conducting my business, and I grew my business. That is America, not calling on the Federal Government to send a couple of million dollars because I want to make things nice for myself. We get it. We hope all Americans can do great things and make it nice for themselves.

Our government is out of money. It is broke, $37 trillion and climbing. We don't have any money. All this is borrowed money, Mr. Chairman. Every cent of it is borrowed. Who borrows money to do things they don't need to do that somebody else in the government is already doing?

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to reduce funding for the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, the SCRC, to fiscal year 2019, so not zeroing it out, just taking it back to prepandemic levels, so we can try to afford some of the stuff that we are borrowing money, again, to pay for.

Again, this commission serves as a duplicative slush fund for parochial interests. People say: Where does all of my tax money go? Here is another example. This time, it is for projects in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia.

Again, many of these projects are worthy. The question is, should the Federal Government be paying for them, especially when the Federal Government doesn't have any money? The commission operates duplicative programs that are better addressed at the State and local levels.

From 2010 to 2020, the SCRC received $250,000 annually, all without having an appointed Federal co-chair. Just think about that. I know $250,000 is nothing around this place, but there was nobody at the wheel that whole time. That number has now ballooned to a whopping $16.25 million in this bill.

There is absolutely no reason for that dramatic increase in funding, especially when funding projects with no national nexus, like electric vehicle charging stations, stormwater management, and green infrastructure, according to their own 2023-2027 strategic plan.

There is a charging station down the street from me. The owner of the place put it in. He probably got money from the Federal Government. That is probably why he did it. He probably wouldn't have done it on his own. I have to pay for it. How is it fair to me? I don't own an electric vehicle. A lot of people don't own one, yet we are paying for this one.

Our constituents simply do not have the money for these projects that have no impact on their lives because they don't live there. In many cases, it drives up inflationary spending, which is the $37 trillion I keep referencing.

Every time we borrow money here, it makes everybody else's prices go up. We have to quit borrowing it, especially to pay for things that we can't afford, don't need, and somebody else is already doing.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I certainly thank the gentlewoman for her viewpoints and comments. I have lived in Florida and Georgia--they are wonderful States--and traveled through all the rest.

I have an awesome mother who helped me in that business and was a part of it. I don't know my father. That is American ingenuity. That is striving even against all odds, like the government, your taxes, your insurance, your payroll, your receivables. We have done it, and we did it without the help of the Federal Government. Many people want to do it. Some people get help from the Federal Government. It is unfair to those who do not.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source