Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment because it prohibits funds provided by this act from closing campgrounds or parks operated by the Army Corps of Engineers located at or around Lake Sidney Lanier, Georgia. I can certainly understand the strong interest in preventing the Corps from closing campgrounds and parks in a particular area. I am trying to think if we have any around me. I don't think so. I probably should get them to do some in our area. The Army Corps of Engineers is one of the Nation's leading Federal providers of outdoor recreation, so you indeed are fortunate. Its recreation sites receive 262 million visitors each year and include more than 400 lake and river projects in 43 States. Unfortunately, the Army Corps of Engineers recreation funding has been--guess what?--declining in recent years. We know they have to make decisions. I support the notion that we do not want the Corps to begin closing recreation sites due to lack of funding. However, this is an issue that affects hundreds of sites across dozens of States. As I said, personally, I don't have a dog in the fight. I do not believe we should begin the practice of using funding prohibitions to carve out special designations but instead should urge and will urge the Corps to develop a comprehensive and fair solution to address the challenge of funding the Corps recreation sites. For this reason, I oppose the amendment at this time, but I look forward to working with the gentleman and my colleagues to develop a solution to the larger problem. Hopefully, through that, the gentleman's site could be benefited. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment which would prohibit the use of funds for the consideration of the social cost of greenhouse gases in the development and implementation of budgets, Federal procurement processes, and environmental reviews. As I have said, it is undeniable that we are witnessing growing weather events stemming from climate change occurring in real time before our very eyes. During 2023, there were 28 separate billion- dollar weather events and climate disasters, costing over $92 billion. There have already been 15 confirmed billion-dollar weather and climate disasters so far this year. In fact, I am sure the gentleman can check with his constituents, but people's home insurance is going up, and there are many places in the country where insurance is no longer offered. The cost of what is happening is rising. We do not have the luxury to pretend that climate change isn't impacting us or that our actions aren't causing it. We need to understand what is happening to people across this Nation. We just heard from a Member from Florida in terms of requesting funding for beach replenishment in a place where the water is rising and sloshing over the edges of Florida on all coasts. Tell American citizens who have lost businesses, homes, and loved ones or have lived in structures that have collapsed or disappeared from hurricanes, wildfires, and other recent natural disasters, that there are no costs from climate change. That is wrong. It is already past time for aggressive action to address climate change and its impacts. It is critical for us to analyze and account for the potential impacts of government actions on the climate, and it is just as important to use that information for positive actions to help heal. The truth is that climate change is having catastrophic social and economic impacts here and across the globe, and they are real. Pretending that climate change doesn't exist won't make it go away. Madam Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this harmful amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment which prohibits funding for the American Climate Corps. I have long been a champion of engaging young people in the climate corps to teach practical skills, to get them out of their narrow worlds, and to provide more open opportunities as happened many years ago with the Works Progress Administration. The whole intent of the climate corps is to create capable people and give them skills to move into ultimately middle-class jobs focused on weatherizing homes in this country, installing solar and other energy infrastructure. Hopefully, we will get some mechanical engineers out of that and some water engineers, hydraulic engineers. To mitigate coastal erosion, maybe we will get some Army Corps of Engineers enlistees. To prevent fires and flooding--you can't go out West and not have an energy company tell you that they are short on people who can climb the poles and try to make repairs after the wildfires out there. The Coast Guard needs individuals to enlist. We also need people to construct and maintain public trails and more, all these wonderful metro parks we have and national parks. This will be a great experience for America's young adults. From the West to the Great Plains to the coasts and the Great Lakes, we are witnessing the wreckage brought about by a changing climate whose ferocity knows no bounds. We just heard from a Member from Florida about beach replenishment. How about putting some of these folks that would be in the climate corps to participate in that effort, if it can be funded. Our success in tackling climate change will require bold, innovative strategies commensurate with the scope of the threats we have and the younger generation coming up behind us to provide that opportunity for them to gain the skills. Last year, President Biden announced the American Climate Corps to train a band of young people in high-demand skills for jobs in the clean energy economy. The programs will give a new generation of Americans the skills necessary to access good-paying jobs that are aligned with high-quality employment opportunities after they complete their training or service program. We must continue to invest in the American workforce of the future. What a wonderful way to give the young people who would be moving forward in this an opportunity to help repair and build forward their Nation. Madam Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, this amendment would prohibit funds for the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases. I don't know where the gentleman lives, but I live in an area where we have very ozone-heavy industrial zones. We have major neighborhoods that are oxygen short. We have areas where methane belches out of old landfills and dumps. We are not the only place in America that has these places, and this amendment would prohibit funds for the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases. We are involved in a big tree planting project in our area right now, 10,000 trees to try to replace the old ones that are over 100 years old and try to bring oxygen into oxygen-short areas. It is very clear that in urban areas coast to coast, there are places that are not healthy to live, and I don't think the countryside should be a dumping ground for waste from industry or any other place, but that has happened in many States in our Union. The work that is being done by the department is crucial to making sure that the government accounts for the potential impacts of government actions on climate. I have to say this, and it doesn't relate to gases, but back in the eighties we ruined the freshwater lake of Erie, and we have been cleaning it up ever since. What happened? The Clean Water Act was passed, and you couldn't dump DDT into the water anymore. We had only two bald eagles left on Lake Erie. Today, we have given rebirth to the American bald eagle population, and they have even flown over to Cleveland and are multiplying now over there. So we have seen the results of stupidity and ignorance in the past, and we don't intend to be ignorant in the 21st century. It is critical to analyze and account for the potential impacts of private as well as governmental actions on climate, and it is important to use that information to better ourselves. I wish we had an answer in the Great Lakes right now for dissolved reactive phosphorus. We don't. However, if we are not smart, the greatest freshwater legacy in the world will be ruined for humanity, and that is not acceptable. There is an old expression: Don't try to fool Mother Nature. I say: Don't ignore Mother Nature when she is telling you something is going wrong. Mr. Chair, this is one such moment in American history. We can't pretend that the impact of human activity on planet Earth is negligible. There are billions of us now, and there is a draw on Mother Earth, and we have to understand her and hear her. We must robustly meet the needs of the future and not flounder in the past. Madam Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this harmful amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman from Connecticut, and I move to strike the last word.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Ogles

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Ms. KAPTUR. This amendment prohibits the use of funds for the Department of Energy's Office of Science's Scientific Workforce Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. This bill already includes harmful riders that show Republicans are not interested in bills that can gain bipartisan support and become law. The underlying bill includes a provision that prohibits funds related to advancing racial equity and supporting underserved communities--I represent some of those--and related to diversity, equity, and inclusion and accessibility in the Federal workforce. In addition, the bill includes a provision that prohibits any activities related to critical race theory that, as we heard during markups last year, none of my Republican colleagues could even define. How many times do my Republican colleagues need to emphasize that they do not like diversity, equity, and inclusion? I would encourage my friend to go to a website and look up Admiral William McRaven's wonderful, wonderful, speech to a graduating class of the Naval Academy called ``Make Your Bed.'' What was interesting about it is that as a former SEAL, he talked about who actually in his SEAL training were the guys who actually won? They were the guys who weren't the tallest, and they weren't the biggest, but they were a squad of sort of people who weren't as tall, they weren't as big, but their fierce spirit drove them to victory. I would urge the gentleman to look at that film, and then come back and consider whether he should ever offer an amendment like this again. I really do not understand why these provisions are necessary on an Energy and Water bill, and I would hope that my colleagues can stop targeting those who may be different from themselves and embrace acceptance or at least tolerance of others. That is the greatness of America. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The Department of Energy is charged with implementing congressionally directed energy efficiency standards. I will tell you, Madam Chair, in our home, efficiency standards have made hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of dollars of difference in savings, certainly in the area of the water heater and the refrigerator. In accordance with the statute, the Department of Energy has published regulations in the code of Federal regulations for more than 60 categories of appliance and equipment types. The Department of Energy drafts the efficiency regulations with the full participation of equipment manufacturers and the public at large. The process includes thorough consideration of all comments and concerns. These actions result in direct energy savings for American consumers. Look at all the little postcards you get in the mail making unsolicited offers. I got one yesterday for windows. I know we are not talking about windows here, but the difference between different window types and how much energy you can save, consumers look at that. We have to work toward improving the reliability and performance across household appliances and commercial and industrial equipment. Efficiency standards are not bans, and they do not impact existing appliances that Americans have purchased. However, I think it is safe to say that virtually all Americans, let alone all the people in this room, have benefited from these types of efficiency standards over the course of their lifetimes, and I bet the gentleman's household has, as well. Again, these actions are required by congressional direction. Collectively, the Biden administration's past and planned energy efficiency actions will save Americans $1 trillion. That is at the household level. That will save the average family at least $100 a year through lower utility bills. That amount may not be a lot to some people, but it is a great deal of money to a lot of people. The Department of Energy estimates that this specific rule would save Americans $44 million in annual operating costs. It will make us smarter and better as a country. If Congress does not like these standards, that should be addressed by new laws through the Energy and Commerce Committee, not through funding prohibitions. With respect to the proposed energy efficiency standards for automatic commercial ice makers, I urge my colleagues with concerns to participate fully in the rulemaking process. That is the appropriate response to a proposed rule that Members oppose. Congress has vested the Department of Energy with the authority to promulgate these rules. They listen to the American people and let us fully participate in that process. Madam 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 the amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, as I have mentioned on other amendments, the Department of Energy is charged with implementing congressionally directed energy efficiency standards. In accordance with the statute, the Department has published regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations for more than 60 categories of appliance and equipment types. The Department of Energy drafts the energy efficiency regulations with the full participation of equipment manufacturers and the public at large. The results are energy savings for the buyer of the equipment. I have experienced that in my own house, and now that the gentleman is buying an appliance for his house, my colleague is going to experience those savings, too. The gentleman ought to add them up. It makes a difference. Efficiency standards are not bans, and they do not impact existing appliances in Americans' homes. I think it is safe to assume that virtually all Americans have benefited from these types of efficiency standards over the course of their lifetimes. Also, our environment has benefited. These actions are required by congressional direction. Laws were passed asking the Department of Energy to do this, and we know that these efficiency standards will save our people over a trillion dollars. That isn't chicken feed. It will save the average family well over $100 a year through lower utility bills. The Department of Energy estimates that this specific rule would slash household utility costs by over $7 billion annually and could save consumers $1,800 on their energy bills over the life of the appliance. That helps pay for the appliance. It helps consumers save money for something else they can buy. If Congress does not like these standards, Members should address it with new laws through the Energy and Commerce Committee, not through funding prohibitions, as the gentleman suggests. Stopping the Department of Energy from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing energy efficiency standards will only create uncertainty for manufacturers and consumers. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment creates a funding prohibition related to the Delaware River Basin Commission. The Delaware River Basin Commission is a Federal-interstate compact agency charged with managing the water resources of the Delaware River Basin on a regional basis without regard to political boundaries. As established by law, through the Delaware River Basin Compact that went into effect in 1961, the commission consists of the Army Corps of Engineers and four basin State Governors. Those States are Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York. The gentleman is from Pennsylvania, one of the four States. The Corps of Engineers and these States work as equal partners for planning, development, and regulatory actions for the river basin. Given the commission's statutory mission, it analyzed the risks to water resources posed by high-volume hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling techniques. Through a public rulemaking process, the commission developed regulations on high-volume hydraulic fracturing in rock formations within the Delaware River Basin. I do not pretend to be an expert on the Delaware River Basin. I trust what these four States have worked on together. As a reminder, the commission consists of the Governors of the four basin States, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, and the North Atlantic Division commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It does not strike me as a proper role for Congress, particularly through an appropriations rider, to overrule regional and local governments on this complex matter. While the commission's work could be further discussed, I am also concerned that this implicates funding provided to the Delaware River Basin Commission as community project funding on behalf of one Member of this body. Madam Chair, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding, and I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I say to the gentleman who is offering it, I have a lot of respect for the State of Pennsylvania because, like Ohio, you manufacture things. You make things happen in America. Right now, in the vehicular sector, especially in new electric drivetrains, the leading nation in the world for that is not the United States of America. The leading nation is China, and to a great degree, if you look at the figures. I don't have them here with me on the floor, but what China has done in other sectors is it manufactures over what the market needs. Let's take steel, for example. Pennsylvania used to be a great steelmaking State, and it still has shreds of that left. China manufactured four times what the world needs and then it dumped them. It does the same in pharmaceuticals. We understand what they are going to do next: cars. The cars they are manufacturing, millions of them, much more than this country, they are going to dump them here too because that is what is happening inside the world of global trade in the automotive sector. I oppose the gentleman's amendment because I want America to be able to compete and to have all the componentry here, including the batteries, in order to move our population. Hybrids are selling. I don't think the all-electric vehicle is as popular. He is correct. There were subsidies provided for that, but we are building a supply chain in the automotive sector, and we could lose it. We could definitely lose it because our trade laws are weak. We are an open country. Other places are not. The Chinese can manufacture because they have billions of hands, really, to work with. It is a much greater population, and they will strategically target. I would just ask the gentleman to take a look at that. The funding in this bill includes, with the people applying, $19 billion in active applications for loans, and there is also the administration of another $19 billion in loans that are either active or have conditional commitments. Let me just go through a couple of them. There is a $2.5 billion loan that just closed in November to support 6,000 construction jobs and an estimated 5,100 permanent jobs at three newly constructed lithium-ion battery cell manufacturing facilities in Spring Hill, Tennessee, not that far from Pennsylvania and Ohio; also, Lansing, Michigan; and Lordstown in my home State of Ohio near the Pennsylvania border. There is a $9.2 billion conditional commitment to finance the construction of three manufacturing plants to produce batteries. We are behind, even with all the money we put into research and everything in order to make batteries more efficient. The Ford Motor Company and their future Ford and Lincoln electric vehicles are estimated to support 5,000 construction jobs and 7,500 operation jobs in Kentucky and Tennessee once the plants are opened and running. We just dedicated in my hometown to working with the Koreans, the South Koreans, a Mobis battery facility to serve the Jeep Gladiator, which is going to have a hybrid electric offering to the marketplace. This is all new. From automotive America, I cannot accept the gentleman's amendment because we want to beat the Chinese, we want to be the best, and we have to have the help of the government in that because we have to move these technologies faster. There was an $850 million loan commitment announced in June of this year to help finance the construction of KORE Power, an advanced battery cell manufacturing facility in Buckeye, Arizona, to support up to 700 construction jobs and 1,250 operation jobs once the facilities are open. In all of our labs at the Department of Energy, we are trying to push battery technology to a level never seen before. This takes time, but it is happening. Believe me, there are other countries that are ahead of us. We are in a catch-up mode, and we are in a predumping mode. I completely disagree with the gentleman's amendment and urge a vote against it. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. I obviously rise in opposition to this amendment. If you want to increase fraud and hinder the ability of the Federal Government to quickly and efficiently interact with private businesses, then, by all means, vote for this gentleman's amendment. However, I will vote against it because we must continue to invest in the manufacturing prowess of this country. We have to catch up. So many of our jobs were outsourced to penny- wage environments in very undemocratic countries, and we lost manufacturing in small towns and big cities across America. So we are in a catch-up mode right now to domestic onshoring and reshoring of vital economic activities, including the manufacturing of vehicles that all of us use to get to work and to conduct the business of this country. I urge my colleagues to vote for America against this misguided amendment.

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

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