Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, surely the new Speaker cannot remain committed to his macabre choice of providing military assistance to Israel while denying it to Ukraine, which is fighting against Putin's invasion in the largest land war in Europe since the Second World War, or Taiwan, whose people are fighting so valiantly to oppose Communist Chinese encroachment on their sovereignty. While posing for photos, the Speaker claimed he cannot identify adequate funds, so he wants to raid the Internal Revenue Service of sophisticated accountants who hold billionaires and corporate tax cheats accountable for not paying their fair share of taxes, including illicit criminal groups funding terrorists. These cuts will decrease revenue--are you ready?--$26.7 billion. You heard me right. Extremist Republicans kneel before the thrones of Wall Street scions while blocking military assistance to valiant nations and people fighting for liberty against evil empires that hate liberty, like Xi's China and Putin's Russia. Mr. Speaker, that is what I call warped thinking. The Speaker should go back to the drawing board. Liberty and justice first and always.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment No. 59 Offered by Mr. Rosendale

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I share the gentleman's strong passion for making sure that America has the very best deterrent on the face of the Earth in view of what we are facing not only in the Middle East, but obviously, as you stated, in Ukraine and with what is happening on the high seas around the globe. We are so proud of our nuclear Navy. I rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment because of my dear friendship with Congressman Garamendi, and I respect his efforts to try to have a responsible nuclear deterrent and weapons program. I understand that. This amendment itself would prohibit funding, as has been stated, for the plutonium pit production at the Savannah River processing facility. We all know that plutonium modernization is a key aspect to meeting our nuclear weapons stockpile requirements and maintaining the Nation's nuclear deterrent. On both sides of the aisle of our subcommittee, we have had complete support, really, in ensuring that our country maintains a safe, secure, and credible nuclear deterrent while also addressing the threat of nuclear nonproliferation and terrorism. However, on our side of the aisle, at least, we continue to be troubled by the unsustainable spending in the Department of Energy's weapons program. I have to say that the concerns about the budget deficit and so forth attend to every agency, including this one. There have been cost overruns at a level that are historic, and I think we have to have rigor in terms of managing whatever funds are allocated to that important task. I wholeheartedly agree with Chair Fleischmann that the National Nuclear Security Administration needs to improve its program management--I hope they are hearing us--given that more than half of its projects are over cost or behind schedule. That is not really a good record for something so important.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. We, as a committee and as a Congress, have to face the realities of future defense caps and begin making important decisions to prioritize within those programs. Only through strategic prioritization can the program achieve success in meeting the needs of stockpile requirements and maintaining our Nation's critical nuclear deterrent. Nonetheless, prohibiting all funds to one strategic investment of plutonium modernization at the Savannah River Plutonium Processing Facility is not the right approach at this time. Mr. Chair, I thank all of my colleagues. In working together, we will find the right path for America. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I thank Congressman Garamendi for making sure we spend our dollars wisely.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I invite the gentlewoman to come into any pulmonary ward in this country and see the cancers that attend to people who have suffered from carbon ingestion in their careers. This amendment prohibits funds to implement the Industrial Decarbonization Roadmap published by the Department of Energy in September 2022. The purpose of the roadmap is to develop a strategic approach to decarbonizing the Nation's industrial sector--I come from industrial America--while simultaneously creating good-paying jobs for American workers, spurring economic growth, developing U.S. leadership in these new technologies, and creating a cleaner, more equitable, and healthier workplace for all Americans. The industrial sector represents 30 percent of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. To address the climate crisis, we must address these emissions. We have a lot more people living in this country now. When I was born, there were 146 million. Today, we have about 335. It is going to go up to 400 million people. We have to think about our way of life and how we meet the demands of a new era. In addressing these emissions, we will also dramatically improve air quality and reduce millions of early deaths in our country and around the world. The roadmap focused on proven steps for energy technology innovation: advancing early-stage research and development, investing in multiple process strategies, and scaling through demonstrations and integrating solutions, including on the factory floor and places where equipment is repaired. America has always been about the future. A successful industrial decarbonization strategy is critical to supporting the existing 11.4 million workers in American manufacturing and growing a future workforce in the clean industry transition. There is a lot of training that has to be done there. How is it that our firefighters across this country, just in the last few years, have discovered the cancers that attend to working in that extremely dangerous and important patriotic service to the people of our country? Their equipment is important, and what happens to their lungs and their bodies is really important. Again, I invite you to come with me into the hospitals of this country and meet the families of workers who have died and the people suffering because of carbon ingestion. While it is clear we need an all-of-the-above energy strategy that taps domestic oil and gas and invests in clean energy, we must continue to promote energy innovation, a cleaner workplace in all sectors of the economy, and in the American home as well. Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, mining is a really difficult industry. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fleischmann), the chair of the Energy and Water Subcommittee.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, as a daughter of automotive and truck America and an aficionado of NASCAR and having spent a lot of my time on drag strips across the country, including my own reasons, I really rise in strong opposition to this amendment because it is not about the future. It is about the past. This amendment prohibits funds for the Department of Energy's SuperTruck 3 program within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. It is hard to make an engine. It is hard to conceive it. It is hard to build it. It takes a lot of creativity to understand propulsion. The parts of the country that I represent specialize in that. The Department of Energy initially launched the SuperTruck initiative in 2009 to improve heavy-duty truck freight efficiency by 50 percent. That is a gulp. The second iteration, SuperTruck 2, sought to double fuel efficiency for 18-wheeler trucks. SuperTruck 3 is currently working to improve medium-and heavy-duty truck efficiencies and reduce emissions of freight transportation, that is underway. This program consists of a public-private partnership with General Motors, Ford Motor Company, Daimler Truck North America, Volvo Group North America, and PACCAR. Now, I want America to succeed. I want the free world to succeed. This program is building on a proven track record. Within 7 years, four truck makers exceeded the SuperTruck 1 goals and the five SuperTruck 2 projects are on track to more than double their fuel efficiency. I invite the gentlewoman to come with me through some of these companies and some of these research sites to see what it takes to make America more fuel efficient. These efforts help create good-paying jobs here at home and boost American supply chains, not in China, not in Japan, not anywhere else in the world, but right here. Oil prices are on the rise again. Our transportation sector is currently largely dependent on petroleum and thus subject to oil price volatility and what will become diminished supplies in the decades ahead. I don't want America to be stuck on the whims of dictators throughout the world. It is common sense we should be developing energy alternatives and promoting energy proficiency and advancement in our transportation sector. While it is clear that we need an all-of-the-above energy strategy that taps domestic oil and gas, we must also invest in alternative energy options to diversify our energy portfolio, including hydrogen, hydrogen fuel cells. Where the market is moving, the companies are moving. We need to help to propel that advancement sooner rather than later. Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, first, I oppose the amendment because the Department of Energy is charged with implementing congressionally directed energy efficiency standards. They are implementing the laws we passed. The Department of Energy drafts energy efficiency regulations with the full participation of the manufacturers and the public at large, and they do issue their guidelines and regulations for review. The end result is people save money. They save money on water heaters. They save money on what it costs to wash clothes at home and on refrigerators. When these standards are set forth, they also promote innovation. You get a lot of new inventions across the country, and we can see the results of that every day. The benefits are real. As a result of the Department of Energy's efficiency actions in the past, cost savings for American families and businesses are projected to reach nearly $2 trillion by 2030. It not only makes sense for the consumer. Frankly, it makes sense for the country because it means that the systems to supply the energy are also more efficient. It drives us to be better at what we do. It is estimated per household the energy efficiencies achieved already have amounted to over $6,000 of savings for every American every month when you pay every one of those bills: your gas bills, your electric bills, everything else you have to pay for in your house. The Department of Energy estimates that this specific rule would slash household utility costs by over $11 billion annually to save consumers $198 billion on their energy bills over 30 years when we look at the whole. With the population growing, we have to do a better job of trying to save resources in order to make sure that everyone has the ability to access them. Stopping the Department of Energy from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing energy efficiency standards basically is bicycling backward and will only create uncertainty for manufacturers and consumers. For consumers, costs go up when we don't pay attention. With respect to the proposed energy efficiency standards for consumer water heaters, I urge my colleagues with concerns to participate fully in the rulemaking process, as I have done with respect to my concerns about the proposed energy efficiency standards for distribution transformers. That is appropriate. It is a response people can take to the proposed rule and companies can take. Congress has vested the Department of Energy with the authority to promulgate these rules. Let us fully participate in the process. Let's make America better. Let's modernize America. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I have long been a champion of ensuring that the United States maintains a safe, secure, and credible nuclear deterrent while addressing the threat of nuclear proliferation and terrorism. I wholeheartedly agree with Chair Fleischmann that the National Nuclear Security Administration needs to improve its program and project management given that more than half of its projects are over cost or behind schedule. We must also face the realities of future defense caps and begin making important decisions to prioritize within this program. As one step in the prioritization process, the National Nuclear Security Administration proposed pausing, not phasing out, construction of this facility to focus resources on high-priority items necessary for nuclear weapon modernization efforts. Only through strategic prioritization can the program achieve success in meeting the needs of stockpile requirements and maintaining the nation's nuclear deterrent. We should not prohibit the NNSA from pausing certain activities, especially since those issues will be resolved through conferencing funding levels. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, this amendment the gentlewoman has offered raises serious constitutional issues and may amount to an unconstitutional bill of attainder. This is not the way to handle policy disputes, with Michael Conner, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for civil works. This amendment prioritizes, I am sad to say, legislative theater over the American people, and it has no chance of becoming law. Madam Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this harmful amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fleischmann), the chair of the Energy and Water Subcommittee.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, this amendment would prohibit funds for the Corps of Engineers to implement or enforce guidance from the 1996 memo called Approval of Perpetual Beach Storm Damage Reduction Easement As a Standard Estate. That is engineering language. While this may sound like a lot of jargon, it is actually an attempt to have one area of Florida treated differently than other areas. Beach renourishment is an important function of the Corps of Engineers and includes the adding of sediment onto or directly adjacent to an eroding beach, something that our country on many coasts now is experiencing. The Corps of Engineers generally requires that real estate easements are granted when performing work, which makes sense, because the taxpayers are footing the bill for the improvement. Further, it seems particularly of interest to taxpayers that, if our taxpayer dollars are improving private property, then there should be an easement provided. In this case, that wasn't required in the past, but the Corps of Engineers realized it wasn't following standard procedures and decided to implement that going forward. This really comes down to one basic question: Do we want to treat one area of the country differently than all the rest of the areas are supposed to be treated? I believe we should strive for consistency in implementing the laws and regulations of this country, especially when it comes to projects funded with taxpayer dollars. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.