Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I also rise in opposition to this amendment. I respect the gentleman from Michigan, particularly because he is from the Great Lakes region, too, and we need him as a strong voice for our Great Lakes, but I do think that cuts to these particular accounts really are counterproductive, for the following reasons. First of all, the most important step any country can take to deal with the deficit is to grow the economy. This particular budget, this particular set of accounts, particularly the Army Corps of Engineers, has the type of construction and building accounts that produce income. They produce income for people who do the work, but they also improve our ports. If you look all around Michigan, if you look at the Soo Locks, if you look at the assets just in our region of the country, the progress that a region can make, because it improves its ports and attendant roads and rails and so forth, creates opportunity for companies to locate and to grow. We just had a phenomenal announcement in the city of Toledo this week by the Cleveland-Cliffs company. We have been working for 30 years to improve the port to connect rail and to have east to west, north to south highway improvements. By golly, it worked with a $700 million investment by the private sector. It was just so exciting to bring ore from Michigan and Minnesota into the lower lakes. It was really quite incredible. So these dollars yield results. They don't happen in one year. They take a while to happen, but they happen. I also oppose the gentleman's amendment because there are $62 billion of backlogged projects at the Army Corps of Engineers alone. I don't know if you saw the stories about the Department of the Interior. People are lined up to get into the national parks through those turnstiles, trying to get into our national parks. We need to improve those parks. We need to make sure that we are doing things like dealing with the Forest Service so that the underbrush is cut out and that our forests aren't burning up all over the country. We have such a maintenance backlog across this Nation, and with budgets of this size, we don't want to be in a position where we under account for the funds that are being spent. So to reduce funding for critical oversight in the administrative departments of these very large agencies, I think is not wise. In fact, it is penny-wise and pound-foolish in the end. Mr. Chair, for all of those reasons--our jobs, the security of taxpayer funds, and for the sake of the future--I oppose the gentleman's amendment and urge my colleagues to join me.

Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to add a bit to that. I thank Congressman Mast very much for offering this amendment. I do think we need to work with the Corps. Obviously, this is a growing problem. We have heard from Florida colleagues. We have heard from colleagues in Nevada, throughout the Great Lakes region. These algal blooms are truly frightening. In the Midwest, in the Great Lakes region, a major water system was shut down for 3 days in the city of Toledo, denying water to over half a million people for 3 days. It is quite frightening. At the moment, there is no--and I say this for the Corps' benefit, because it would require cooperation with other agencies--ecosystem satellite mapping or drone technology currently that is able to photo large regions and home in on where the nutrients are that are causing the problem. As I have gotten into this more deeply, we need high science, whether it is high-frequency infrared or whatever we use. We do not have the ability to home in on where the causes are coming from and then target the toxic portions of those algal blooms. So a lot of work is needed, and I really appreciate the gentleman rising tonight. I know you have gotten the Corps' attention as you have gotten our attention, and we will work with the chairman to see if we can't make progress on this really vexing issue.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would essentially strike the provision related to the waters of the United States, section 108. Unfortunately, Republican insistence on the inclusion of poison pill riders like this one has derailed several important pieces of legislation over the last few years, especially clean water rural riders. However, let me be plain. This rider is worse than any of those previous versions, and it will not gain the Democratic votes necessary to become law. It actually is a roadblock in the way of us moving our bills forward. This rider would exempt the repeal of the clean water rule from laws that would otherwise apply, including the Administrative Procedure Act, essentially allowing the President to act unilaterally, the executive branch to act unilaterally without any input from the public. That doesn't sound like America to me. The Administrative Procedure Act was a Republican idea to make sure that government is accountable to its citizens and that their input be considered. People have come to expect this in their own communities. Exempting this action on clean water is a very slippery slope toward government by fiat, by an administration which deserves more scrutiny, I might add, on that front than any in our history. So I urge all my colleagues to support the Kaptur-Beyer amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to comment, in asking my colleagues to support this amendment, that the amendment itself is intended to address the two Supreme Court decisions. And in addition, if we leave this language in the bill, the chairman was correct, this is at the policy level. This doesn't belong in an appropriation bill. Let them deal with this in the courts and the authorizing committees. I think it creates a very, very high speed bump that threatens our bill's passage as we move forward, so I ask my colleagues to support us on striking the provision related to the waters of the United States, section 108 offered by myself and Mr. Beyer of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. I respect Congressman McKinley's amendment and his desire to help America and help his own State. And for my entire career, I have voted for clean coal research and development because southern Ohio has a whole lot of Btus underground in the form of coal. However, I really object to the gentleman taking the funds from the Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy account. I would like you to know that that account, in this bill, is cut $986 million below last year's level, and that is a deep concern because that is the part of our economy that is growing. Ten percent of the jobs produced in the energy sector are in renewables, and we actually employ more people in solar and in wind energy than we do in coal extraction. So we know that a major part of our future lies in new energy technologies, these developing technologies which have been proving themselves. An additional cut of $33.4 million in the EERE account would further weaken these new technologies. And I will guarantee you that the technologies are so valuable that the Russians and the Chinese are hacking into these companies repeatedly because of their importance to the future, and they recognize where the future is headed. And we have got a real job on our hands to hold on to these technologies because of that and because of their market manipulation. China is a great market manipulator. She has a state-run economy, and it is not fair. If they can't steal the technology directly--if you invest over there and you take your technology there, they steal your IT there. So just since 2003, our country has spent $2.6 trillion importing foreign petroleum. When you think about the importance of America being energy independent here at home, coal, clean coal, has a role to play in that, but these new technologies have a major role to play as well. We all support a diverse energy portfolio to eliminate our reliance on imported energy--some would say addiction to imported energy. We have been breaking that addiction. We should be advancing technology to clean up fossil energy, yes, and this bill already does that with sufficient funding to the fossil energy accounts. Our country should be leading investment in these technologies, not just for our own energy security, but also for economic opportunities and the jobs that this expanding market is already providing us. We can't really afford to cede this market to any other country in the world, and I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, as the designee of Ranking Member Lowey, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment to support the growth of vibrant coastal economies and creation of fisheries and agriculture jobs. The National Ocean Policy is helping agencies and States collaborate to reduce illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, and one can just take a look that the ocean policy supports almost 2 million fisheries-related jobs in our country and $5.3 billion in commercial fish landings, as well as enhanced tourism, and the National Ocean Policy doesn't cost us anything. I just want to remind people that our country currently imports 91 percent of consumed seafood, with half coming from foreign agriculture. So this policy is extraordinarily important. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline) for the purpose of entering into a colloquy.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, may I ask how much time do I have remaining?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman so much for coming to the floor tonight, and I want to thank all of our colleagues who have spoken out so eloquently on the importance of National Ocean Policy in supporting the Pingree, et al. amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman has a point of view that I do not support, but in terms of this amendment, it really is not necessary. It is redundant. On March 28 of this year, Executive Order No. 13783, signed by President Donald Trump, has rescinded every one of the analyses that the gentleman referenced in his proposed amendment. So this amendment does less than nothing. It has already been dealt with through executive order. I would just encourage my colleagues to let's move the agenda along this evening where we will have significant debate perhaps on other matters. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment because it is redundant at this point, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the intent of the gentlewoman's amendment. I am very glad to hear what the gentlewoman is saying. She is trying to do everything she can to support American-made products and particularly American-made anchor chain. I would be willing to work with the chairman and the gentlewoman as the process goes forward to ensure we purchase American-made products. I just wanted to express that support. I thank the gentleman for his offer.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, with all the respect I have for Congressman Burgess, I oppose this damaging rider which would block the Department of Energy from implementing or enforcing commonsense energy efficiency standards for lightbulbs. This rider was a bad idea when it was first offered 7 years ago, and it is even more unsupportable now. Why do I say that? Because every claim made by proponents of the rider have been proven wrong. Number one, we have been told, including by Dr. Burgess, that the energy efficiency standards would ban incandescent lightbulbs. That is simply false. You can go to the store today and see shelves of modern energy efficient incandescent lightbulbs that meet the standard, and they are the same as the old bulbs except they last longer, use less electricity, and save consumers money. Then we heard for years that the energy efficiency standards restrict consumer choice. If you have shopped for lightbulbs lately, which I have, you know that isn't true. In fact, modern incandescent bulbs, compact fluorescent lightbulbs, and LEDs of every shape, size, and color are now available. Consumers have never had more choice, and the efficiency standard spurred innovation that dramatically expanded options for consumers. I am amazed how many shelves lightbulbs now occupy in the stores. Critics of the efficiency standards claim that they would cost consumers money. In fact, the opposite is true. When the standards are in full effect, the average American family will save about $100 per year. That is pretty good. That is $12.5 billion in savings for consumers and businesses nationwide every year. That is $12.5 billion. But this rider threatens those savings. That is why consumer groups have consistently opposed this rider. Here is the reality. The 2007 consensus energy efficiency standards for lightbulbs were enacted with bipartisan support and continue to enjoy overwhelming industry support. U.S. manufacturers are already meeting the efficiency standards. The effect of the rider is to allow foreign manufacturers to sell old, inefficient lightbulbs in the United States that violate the efficiency standards. That is unfair to domestic manufacturers who have invested millions of dollars in U.S. plants to make efficient bulbs that meet the standards. Why on Earth would we want to pass a rider that favors foreign manufacturers who ignore our laws and penalize U.S. manufacturers who are following our laws? But it gets even worse. The mere existence of this rider poses and additional threat to U.S. manufacturing. The bipartisan 2007 Energy bill required the Department of Energy to establish updated lightbulb efficiency standards by January 1 of this year. It also provided that, if final updated standards are not issued by then, a more stringent backstop standard of 45 lumens per watt automatically takes effect, and incandescent lightbulbs currently cannot meet this backstop standard. Well, we are well into 2017, and the Burgess lightbulb rider has remained on the books. So, earlier this year, the Department of Energy had to go forward with finalizing the 45-lumens-per-watt backstop standard. Approving this rider year after year is ultimately what blocked the Department of Energy from issuing the required efficiency standards in time to avoid such stringent measures. Ironically, it is this rider that would effectively ban the incandescent lightbulb in 2020. The Burgess rider directly threatens existing lightbulb manufacturing jobs in the United States. It would stifle innovation and punish companies that have invested in domestic manufacturing. This rider aims to reverse years of technological progress, only to kill jobs, increase electricity bills for our consumers, and worsen pollution. It is time to choose common sense over rigid ideology. It is time to listen to the manufacturing companies, consumer groups, and efficiency advocates who all agree that this rider is harmful. Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the Burgess lightbulb rider, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this particular amendment. I say to the gentleman: For the company in your district, the regulations include the opportunity for waiver. And I would hope that the company in your district would be able to work that out. The amendment that the gentleman proposes seeks to prohibit the Department of Energy from implementing testing procedures for the energy efficiency standards set for heat pumps and air-conditioners. I, as the consumer, whether I am buying a heat pump, a furnace, a refrigerator--and every American who now shops looks for those--that is like the sticker. That is what you really look for, and you want to know how much you are going to pay every year for what that product will cost you for energy. And the better product you have, and you are able to put that on a label and it is verified by the Department of Energy, that helps sales. The original standards that were created were supported and have been supported by the Edison Electric Institute, the association which represents all investor-owned utilities. The amendment, by the way, is opposed by the Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, which represents manufacturers of HVAC systems that employ over 1.3 million Americans. And industry opposes the amendment, environmentalists oppose it, because it would cost an average--a cumulative cost to Americans of $12.2 billion over 30 years. So there is a lot of opposition to this. It is important to note that these standards were negotiated in a collaborative process by industry groups, environmental nonprofits, and consumer advocates with the Department of Energy. A rider like this one damages the integrity of the negotiated rulemaking process, which is designed to provide certainty and voice to the industry and education and information to consumers. Test procedures are simple and important. The Department of Energy develops them to make sure companies are rating their product accurately so consumers don't get stuck paying higher bills than they expect, so you know what you buy. Let's be clear. This amendment would effectively nullify the efficiency standards for heating and cooling systems, in spite of the fact that these standards project that it will save billions of dollars over the period that they are applied, and that is equivalent to having 1 million fewer homes connected to the grid over the same period. It is an enormous savings. If there is a particular company that is unfairly impacted by these rules, there are outlets for regulatory relief through waivers, as I have mentioned, and this amendment would neuter those standards and thereby allow cheap imports to undercut American products by exploiting the lack of standards. We don't want to go back to that. I look for those yellow labels. To protect American manufacturers, to save Americans money on their utility bills, and to reduce air pollution, I strongly oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' The gentleman may have a good intention in offering this amendment, but I don't think you want to take away the benefits to the American people for one company in your district when that company, in fact, can negotiate and receive a waiver. I would just ask my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great pleasure and enthusiasm to congratulate St. Paul Missionary Baptist Church in Toledo on the church's 100th anniversary. The history of this amazing congregation begins in the home of Mrs. Mamie Porter on Howard Street in Toledo, where, on July 12, 1917, the families of Westly Davis, Robert Christian and Sally McElya met for their first worship service. During the course of the next year, the congregation grew which resulted in the formal organization of the church, which they named St. Paul. From the start, the church was a community anchor. Over the years that followed, there were numerous challenges and difficulties that the small congregation overcame, including worshipping in several locations, until finding a home at 654 Hamilton for many years. The current location of St. Paul's, 1502 N. Detroit Avenue, was purchased in 1958 from the United Brethren Church and has been the congregation's home since that time. There have been a number of shepherds of the St. Paul congregation. Rev. Joseph Smith served as a visionary and dedicated leader of the congregation from 1928 until his death in 1969. To date he is the longest serving Pastor. On October 25, 1969, Rev. John H. McKissick assumed the leadership of St. Paul. Inspired by the guidance of Rev. and Mrs. McKissick, the church initiated a Watch Care Program, a Department of Evangelism and an Annual Week-End Youth Seminar. A Credit Union was also established as a benefit for the members. After 16 years of dedicated service Rev. McKissick retired on December 31, 1985, however, he remained as Interim until the search for a new pastor was concluded. From 1986 to 2003, the following Pastors served the congregation of St. Paul: Dr. Irece T. Bradley, Rev. Julius Minor (Interim), Rev. Floyd Smith and Rev. James R. Glover. During this timeframe new programs and ministries were established, such as: Moments in Mission, Christian Education, The Sharing Place, Tiny Tot Worship and the Mass Choir. Rev. James H. Willis, Sr. was elected as Pastor on October 19, 2003. He has exemplified enthusiasm and an unwavering commitment to the spiritual growth of the church. Some of the ministries established during his tenure include: Noon Day Prayer and Bible Study, Young Adult Ministry, Young Adult Monthly Faith Friday, Young Adult Praise Dance Ministry and Young Adult Usher Board. A Youth Minister was appointed in 2016. St. Paul has modernized its ministry by providing a live stream of Sunday morning worship service, establishing a text alert notification system and installing a projector unit in the sanctuary. The St. Paul Church Family is blessed to still have 28 ``Pioneers'' who have maintained membership for over 50 years, and most of them still remain actively engaged in church activities. St. Paul Missionary Baptist Church is a magnificent example of all that a spiritual home should be, rendering indelible service to the Toledo community for the past 100 years. Living the Gospel, St. Paul's congregation looks back on a century of spreading the Word and sharing Christ's message of Love while looking forward to a future of spiritual service. Romans 10:17 tells us, ``Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.'' I am pleased to join our community in recognizing the milestone centennial celebration of St. Paul Missionary Baptist Church.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member, Mr. Polis, for yielding me the time. Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose the rule and underlying bill by my Republican colleagues. The Republican bill favors big Wall Street megabanks and financial interests over the American people. I would ask my Republican friends: Don't you remember the financial crash of 2008 and who created it? Their bill repeals a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rule which cuts down on those companies' abilities to use so-called forced arbitration clauses which prevent cheated or defrauded consumers from going to court. In other words, they prevent the victims from going to court. They want to handcuff the customers, not the megabanks that took them to the cleaners. This takes us back to the days of when the fine print in the credit card or other financial agreement prevented consumers from banding together in class action lawsuits to challenge illegal behavior by the most powerful financial giants in the world. Try to deal with one of them as an individual. They don't even return phone calls, for heaven's sake. You get in that robo system for hours and hours, and then the phone call cuts off. Republicans want to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, even after the agency's work for consumers resulted in $12 billion in relief to 27 million Americans who were harmed, and that is just the beginning. Why is this Republican-led Congress so keen on protecting companies like Wells Fargo that used arbitration clauses and class action bans to create fraudulent accounts, overcharge customers with debit fees and mortgages, and even avoid responsibility for their misconduct? Criminal misconduct. You can laugh. Come and meet the millions of people who have lost their homes across this country or are underwater on their mortgages. There is no justice for them. The idea that banks can rip off consumers by abusing obscure clauses buried deep in their contracts is totally outrageous.

Ms. KAPTUR. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's rule banning the use of these clauses is simply a commonsense step to ensure that all consumers have equal access to justice. This is the people's House. We should protect consumers from the wolves. Our job is to keep them at bay, not make it easier for them to prey on the American people. This is not what President Trump ran on. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and stand with America's consumers over special interests, particularly the financial predators that brought this country to ruin.