Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

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

Ms. KAPTUR. This amendment prohibits funds provided by this act from closing campgrounds or parks operated by the Army Corps of Engineers and 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. Frankly, I wish my area had one, but we don't have Corps facilities like that. The gentleman has been blessed. The Corps of Engineers is one of the Nation's leading Federal providers of outdoor recreation. Its recreation sites receive 262 million visits each year and include more than 400 lake and river projects in 43 States. Unfortunately, the Corps of Engineers' recreation funding has been declining in recent years. 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. I do not believe we here today should begin the practice of using funding prohibitions to carve out special designations, but instead should develop a comprehensive solution, fair to all regions across our Nation, to address the challenge of funding the Corps' recreation sites. I would welcome the opportunity to work with the gentleman on that and obviously the chair of the full committee. For this reason, I oppose the amendment at this time, but look forward to working with my colleagues to develop a solution to the larger problem. Maybe we can even give a little attention to the Great Lakes. Wouldn't that be great? Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, as I understand it, this amendment prohibits the use of funds for the Department of Energy's Office of 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. During our full committee markup--I remember it well--Republicans added a provision that prohibits funds for any diversity, equity, and inclusion office, program, or training. The underlying bill already includes section 606 that prohibits funds related to advancing racial equity and support for underserved communities and related to diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility in the Federal workforce. In addition, section 605 of the underlying bill prohibits any activities related to ``critical race theory'' that, as we heard during the markups when I asked the question, none of my Republican colleagues could even define. I don't see a definition in your presentation here today. How many times do the individuals on the other side of the aisle need to emphasize that they do not like the words ``diversity, equity, and inclusion?'' I know when we were educated, we were always taught about ``e pluribus unum,'' out of many, one. That is what makes our Nation great, that we aren't just one widget, that, in fact, our common experience is our shared heritages, wherever they might be from. It makes us a more interesting place, and it also connects us to the broader world beyond our shores. I really do not understand why these provisions are necessary on an energy and water bill, and I hope that my colleagues would stop targeting those who may be different from themselves--or they might think they are--and embrace acceptance or at least tolerance of others. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject 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 rise in strong 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. In my part of the country, we recognize what greenhouse gases are. We have to contain methane at many landfills that have let that stuff belch out into the atmosphere. The satellites that take photos of the Earth from a distance can show us that when we weren't conscious of greenhouse gases, we were breaking through the ozone layer, and we have been able to heal that over time with concerted effort. Those who care to know about greenhouse gases have plenty of evidence around us. We know that the work of this particular group is crucial to making sure the government accounts for the potential impacts of government actions on the climate. Now, I just left a group of farmers back in Ohio, and I can tell you that their fields are being washed out because of added rainfall at a level they have never seen before. We have the saltwater creeping up the Mississippi River right now. I was just talking to one of the Members on the other side of the aisle yesterday concerned about Baton Rouge and what is happening with the ocean and saltwater coming north. This has never happened before. This is very unusual. Whether it is gases in the air--I think of Canada this past summer. In my part of the country, we never had the kind of fog, I call it, that came from those forest fires down into our region and even made it here to Washington, D.C., and down to the panhandle. This is all new. As I have said, it is undeniable that we are witnessing growing weather events stemming from climate change occurring in real time, even to the point where we can see it with our own eyes. As of the end of August, there have been more than 23 disasters in 2023 alone costing at least $1 billion each. With the costs of trying to pick up after these terrible events, whether we are talking about Hawaii or other places in our country that have been hit hard, our homeland security and disaster assistance accounts have tripled because of what is going on. We know that the events this year have exceeded the previous records set in 2020, and we still have a few more months to go before this year is done. We don't have the luxury to pretend that climate change isn't impacting us--whatever name you call it--or that our actions aren't somehow related to it. Tell the American citizens who lost businesses or homes and loved ones from hurricanes, wildfires, and other recent natural disasters, and those who continue to face unrelenting flooding in the Midwest, that there are no costs from climate change because there sure are. It is already past time for aggressive action to address climate change and its impacts. The truth is that it is having catastrophic social and economic impacts here in the United States and across the globe, and these are real and unrelenting. Pretending that it doesn't exist simply won't make it go away. Madam Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this harmful amendment and would enjoy talking to the gentleman at any time about my part of the country and what we endure. From what I see in your part of the country, you have issues there, as well. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, all I wish to say on this is there is an old expression: Don't try to fool Mother Nature. I would say and advise, don't ignore Mother Nature. 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 in opposition.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, here is another amendment that prohibits something else. The gentleman's amendment would prohibit funding for the American Climate Corps. I have been a long-time supporter of the idea of engaging young Americans in helping to build our country forward as the original Civilian Conservation Corps did many, many years ago. People who became a part of that saw a part of America that they had never seen before. They made friends. They learned new skills. It gave people a pride in our Nation that was incalculable. The whole intent of the American Climate Corps is to engage young Americans in helping our Nation build forward, whether they would be weatherizing homes, planting trees, installing solar infrastructure, mitigating coastal erosion, permitting fires and flooding--the gentleman talked about some of the needs of our national forests-- constructing and maintaining public trails, and so much more. From the western Great Plains to the coast and Great Lakes, we are witnessing the wreckage brought about by changing climate with a ferocity that knows no bounds. Our success in tackling this challenge will require bold and innovative strategies and connecting to the younger generation. Last month when the President announced the American Climate Corps, he talked about training young people in high-demand skills for jobs in the clean energy economy, as well. This program will give a new generation of Americans the skills that our grandparents had, which are necessary to access good-paying jobs that are aligned with high-quality employment opportunities after they complete their paid training and service. It is really a program for America and for the next generation, and I would welcome that. It used to be that most persons had someone in their family who joined the U.S. military. Today, less than 1 percent of America's families are connected to the U.S. military. We have to find other means to engage our younger people in patriotic service, and this is one of those. I believe we must continue to invest in America's next generation, our future workforce, and this is such a positive way to do it. 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, this amendment raises serious constitutional issues and may amount to an unconstitutional bill of attainder. This is not the way to handle policy disputes with the Secretary of Energy for our country. This amendment prioritizes legislative theater over the American people and doesn't have a chance of becoming law. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this harmful amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I would say in reaction to what I just heard on the floor here, there must be two Jennifer Granholms because the one I know is simply exceptional. 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 rise in opposition to this amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, his amendment would prohibit any funds to enforce COVID-19 mask mandates. I must say, America used to focus on big issues. I remember as a child we tried to figure out how to eradicate polio coast-to-coast, and you know what, we did it. America was inspired by a great a President, John Kennedy, to land a man on the moon, and we did. America did it. We worked together to defeat Soviet communism, and guess what, we did it. We have remnants of that tyrannical regime still seated, and history will show whether we meet the challenge or not. But most of America wants to defeat Vladimir Putin's unconscionable invasion, unprovoked to the adjoining nation of Ukraine. This amendment is one more controversial poison pill policy rider dealing with face masks. You know what, I didn't really come to Congress to worry about the face masks. I find the majority's odd interest in this peculiar. Preventing diseases reduces healthcare costs, such as hospitalizations, pharmaceuticals, and benefits employers by resulting in less employee absenteeism. I find it very odd--here we are moving into Halloween and people are spending millions of dollars on masks to go all around the country and parade around in neighborhoods in masks. Yet, when we talk about facial masks to fight the COVID-19 virus, which is a wicked one, it has been politicized to a level that it is almost a theater of the absurd. From January 3, 2020, to September 27, 2023, there were how many deaths in our country from COVID? Madam Chair, there were 1,127,152 deaths from COVID-19 in our country alone. That is 1,127,152 deaths. Some of the people who died we knew and loved, and some were people serving in this room. Madam Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this harmful amendment and to focus on great quests, not ridiculousness. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, the Department of Energy is charged with implementing congressionally directed energy efficiency standards. So the Department is fulfilling the obligations in law. Now, if individuals want to comment on that there is a way to do that, to fully participate in the rulemaking process, and I urge our colleagues to do that. Again, the gentleman's interests seem to be rather narrow, and to create false fears--whether it is masks or whether it is trying to get better equipment--more energy efficient equipment in the country to help everyone, businesses that use ice making machines, and homeowners who have ice making in their home. This specific rule would save Americans over $44 million in annual operating costs. That is pretty good. We make American industry more efficient and we make it cheaper. They save money. We are trying to act in the interest of the American people. There is a quote in this Chamber, ``Let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its powers, build up its institutions, promote all its great interests and see whether we also in our day and generation may not perform something worthy to be remembered.'' That is what we should aspire to. In saving the American people money in helping them to promote their companies to save money to make America better, I think that we are on the right path. I think the gentleman's amendment is misdirected, and I oppose it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, the Department of Energy is charged with implementing congressionally directed energy efficiency standards, and I think it is safe to assume 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. Today, the typical new room air-conditioner uses 39 percent less energy than its 1990 counterpart. In that 33-year time span, the Department of Energy raised the efficiency standard for room air- conditioners three times, and real results happened. The Department of Energy estimates that these new standards will save American families and consumers approximately--are you ready?--$1.5 billion per year on their electricity bills. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, this amendment raises serious constitutional issues and may amount to an unconstitutional bill of attainder. This is not the way to handle policy disputes with Mr. Rodrigues, the Assistant Secretary for Electricity at the Department of Energy's Office of Electricity. He has very impressive credentials, with over two decades of work in industry in California and Arizona, parts of our country that understand the new pressures on producing power. Look at the forest fires that have occurred out there and the stresses on the environment that cause millions of people not to have electricity. He has actually lived in places in our country that have experienced it first. He has impressive degrees in law and obviously in business, so I don't think they are being fair to this gentleman, and this is certainly not the way to handle this. This amendment prioritizes legislative theater over the American people. It has no chance of becoming law. Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this harmful amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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