Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize St. Lucas Lutheran Church in South Toledo. On Sunday, June 12, the church dedicated a state historic marker as part of its 130th anniversary celebration. The celebration began on Mothers Day 2016 with a concert featuring the Toledo Symphony's Brass Quintet. St. Lucas is a progressive Lutheran Church wrapping itself around its congregants in their faith journeys. It describes itself as ``a faith community of many ministries and many ministers. In all we do we strive to glorify Jesus Christ.'' The church began on March 21, 1886 when a group of people met in the home of Louis Burman to discuss the formation of a Lutheran church in Toledo's southern neighborhood to serve the Germans settling there. Though first meeting in borrowed space, by 1887 the congregation had its own church building and parsonage on Walbridge Avenue. With both German and English services, a Ladies Aid Society, Young People's Society and choir, the church was well established. Though these organizations were briefly disbanded, by 1897 they were a permanent part of the mission of St. Lucas. That same year, a monthly paper was published in coordination with two other congregations, with an eventual readership in 1200 homes. As it grew, the church outgrew its space and the last services in St. Lucas' first church building were held on May 8, 1910. The new building was a reflection of the church's origins as a German mission church and built in the Gothic revival style. During the 1911 dedication celebration of the new church building, the congregation received a German language Bible inscribed by Kaiser Wilhelm II. The dedication also saw the first English-speaking sermon, offered by Pastor Hugo Hamfeldt. Soon Sunday services were spoken in English. The church undertook renovations in 1931, 1945, 1961 and as part of its 1986 centennial celebration in order to ``enhance and update the worship atmosphere.'' In the 1960s as the ecumenism movement flourished, St. Lucas was a charter member of the Old South End's ecumenical organization known as CROSS (Christians Relating Our Savior on the South Side.) CROSS has engaged in exchanges in the pulpit, Thanksgiving Eve and Unity Good Friday services, Feed Your Neighbor food pantry and children's summer services. As the neighborhood changed, St. Lucas continued to adapt itself, ``taking risks for the sake of the Gospel.'' It now sits in the heart of a neighborhood with many challenges, yet the church soldiers on meeting the needs of its congregation and neighborhood through outreach. Now as it comes to its 130th anniversary, St Lucas Lutheran Church proudly dedicates a historic marker outlining the church's history in the neighborhood. A special feature of the dedication ceremony is the world premiere of a hymn which was commissioned especially for the 130th anniversary. With words and music by the parish's husband and wife team of Michael and Karen Biscay, Choirmaster Ron Lang conducts the St. Lucas Choir, accompanied by organist Jamie Dauel in the fast- ever performance of the anthem. At its 125th anniversary, the Biscays wrote a hymn in tribute to the congregation's German heritage and this work is also featured in Sunday's dedication ceremony. I was pleased to join the congregation and members of our community in celebrating this joyous occasion. St. Lucas Lutheran Church stands today in testament to the faith and perseverance of its members through the ages. Generations have worshiped together, prayed together, served together. Truly, it can be said of St. Lucas that its congregation has lived the Gospels and Christ's message as written in Matthew 12:30-31 to ``Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength . . . Love your neighbor as yourself.'' As the congregation of St. Lucas Lutheran Church continues on its faith journey, living the Gospel and sharing Christ's message of Love, it stands on a rich and deep history. The Ohio Historic Marker records that history as the church turns forward to a future strong in its faith.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Ohio, the Honorable Warren Davidson, be permitted to take the oath of office today. His certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest and no question has been raised with regard to his election.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker and Members, it is my privilege to welcome Congressman Warren Davidson, his wife, Lisa; and their two beautiful children, Rachel and Zach, to Washington, D.C. To the Davidsons, their extended family, and their friends who are here to support them, we all wish you hearty congratulations. To Congressman Davidson, on behalf of a grateful Nation, I want to extend our gratitude for your many years of service in the United States Army. Thank you for your dedication to duty, honor, and country. Though I am dean of Ohio's delegation, it seems just like yesterday when I was in your shoes. This moment you will never forget. You have worked hard to put together a winning coalition to win a hard-fought campaign, and that takes a dedicated person and a very giving family to make the necessary sacrifices. To accomplish worthy objectives during your time in Congress, you will want to find issues that you can build coalitions around and then enlist others on both sides of the center aisle in that cause. Perhaps the best advice I can give you is to stay close to the people where you came from in Troy, Ohio; in Clark, Miami, Darke, Preble, and Butler Counties; and as Daniel Webster's words inspire us through the ages, dedicate our efforts to a higher cause, developing the resources of our land, calling forth its powers, building up its institutions, promoting all its great interests, and seeing whether we also, in our day and generation, may not perform something worthy to be remembered. Welcome to the United States House of Representatives to Warren, Lisa, and your family. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Cincinnati, Ohio (Mr. Chabot) my dear colleague. He is the dean, the longest serving member, on the Republican side.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember the life of Susan J. Tolchin, someone who I had the privilege to work with and who I had long admired for her curiosity, her judgment, and her concern for others. An ardent feminist, who along with her husband Marty, brought attention to the plight of middle-class working women, a class of Americans often overlooked and rarely chronicled, Susan and Marty authored several books together, all of which highlighted the mechanisms that the Tolchin's considered ``occupational hazards of democracy.'' As an author and a professor, Susan focused on and scrutinized political patronage and its many pitfalls, and was one of the first political scientists to identify growing voter disenchantment and disillusion with their government. She wisely concluded that these concerns were deeply rooted in the women's and worker's rights issues, largely discounted and ignored by policymakers, but which she sought to highlight through her teaching and writings. In her seminal and sage work on political patronage, Susan redefined political patronage as that which ``includes the vast range of favors awarded by constantly expanding governments.'' Likewise, her work on evolving voter anger was cutting-edge analysis, far ahead of her peers. For those who had the fortune to know her, Susan was an engaging and charming conversationalist, with a natural curiosity and ability to learn from others. She was always learning and seeking new ideas, and applying this knowledge to her scholarship in the classroom and in her writings in political journals, magazines and books. Susan's legacy of scholarship has provided those of us who also champion women's and laborers' rights with a critical knowledge base. Her work was inspirational, and insightful, and helped me and many others to understand trends and the undercurrents that caused them which others might have missed. Susan was not only dedicated to struggles of the working, middle- class women, but also to her family, whom she loved dearly. She and her husband Martin worked closely together for many decades, authoring many books. She adored her daughter Karen, also a professor, and their charming grandson, Charlie. They were quite a team, Susan and Marty, always joyful and supportive of each other. Those who were fortunate to have known and loved Susan, or who had followed her work, will miss her terribly. Her passion was an inspiration for many, and one can only hope that her passing will not be the last chapter of her story, but that she will continue to inspire countless others. She certainly inspired me.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining, please?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say that I associate myself with Congressman Maloney's remarks. Workplace discrimination is a crime that we, as lawmakers, have long sought to mitigate. I have to say I admire him for his courage, for his eloquence, and for being here this evening. I yield to the gentleman from New York in order to complete his statement.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the fine gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order on the amendment to the amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent that the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) be withdrawn to the end that the Chair put the question de novo.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to assure the Members that the following amendment is the one that we are debating: ``None of the funds made available by this act may be used to revoke funding previously awarded to or within the State of North Carolina.'' Is this the amendment that the gentleman is offering?

Ms. KAPTUR. Okay. I thank the Chair so very much. In such case, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman and Members, this amendment tells the Department of Energy to ignore the latest climate change science. Even worse, the amendment denies that carbon pollution is harmful. According to this amendment, the cost of carbon pollution is zero. That is science denial at its worst, and, frankly, it is just simply wrong. Tell homeowners in Arizona or those who live up in Canada, where the wildfires have just raged and who have seen their homes ravaged by drought-stoked wildfires, that there are no costs from climate change. If you are a gardener, like I am, even the backs of seed packets have changed, because what used to be a Tennessee tomato, now we grow it in Ohio. The climate zones are moving north. It is getting warmer. Tell that to the firefighters who have to put everything else on the line to fight those fires that rage in California and points west or north. Tell that to the children and the elderly that will be plagued by heat stress and vulnerable to increased disease. Tell that to the people evacuated from the Isle de Jean Charles in Louisiana who will lose homes as their island vanishes under the rising sea. Or how about Houston, Texas, with the flash flooding? That is one of the most recent. These people are looking to us to protect America and to protect them, and they are looking to the Republicans to finally be reasonable. The truth is that no one will escape the effects of unmitigated climate change. It will have an impact on all of us, and, frankly, it is having an impact on all of us. But this amendment waves a magic wand and decrees that climate change imposes no costs at all. House Republicans can vote for this amendment. They can try to block the Department from recognizing the damage caused by climate change and the potential damage, but they cannot overturn the laws of nature. They are powerful. We should be heeding the warnings of the climate scientists, not denying reality. Thank God we have them. We don't have to operate in ignorance. Recently, our Nation's leading climate scientists released the National Climate Assessment, which continues to show evidence confirming the ongoing impacts of climate change. Leading scientists around the world, not just here, agree the evidence is unambiguous. This amendment tells the Department to ignore some of the wisest people in the world. The latest science shows that climate change is expected to exacerbate heat waves--those have been felt around the country-- droughts--look at Lake Mead in Las Vegas. Look at the rings going down. Look at millions and millions of acres now enduring wildfires. Look at the added floods, water- and vector-borne diseases, which will be greater risks to human health and lives around the world. The security of our food supply will diminish, resulting in reductions in production and increases in prices. According to a leading climate science body, the IPCC, increasing global temperatures and drastic changes in water availability, which we have just heard about on this floor, in California, for heaven's sake, combined with an increase in food demand poses large risks to food security globally and regionally. When I was born, there were 146 million people in this country. By 2050, we will have 500 million. It takes more animals, it takes more machines, it takes more energy, to feed that population, and it takes much more to feed the global population. Human beings and our way of life do have an impact on what happens on this very, very suspended planet in the Milky Way galaxy. This amendment tells the Department to ignore these and many other impacts, and, frankly, I view that as irresponsible. Federal agencies have a responsibility to calculate the costs of climate change and take them into account. It is plain common sense, and it is a life-and-death matter. That is exactly what the Obama administration is doing. An interagency task force worked over the course of several years to estimate the costs of the harm from carbon pollution. The cost calculation was first issued in 2010 and updated in 2014 and continues to be refined by incorporating new scientific and technical information and soliciting input from leading experts. This was a very constructive calculation and a conservative one at that, with the full costs of climate change almost certainly being higher. But it is better than the previous estimate and much, much better than assuming the costs are nothing. Unfortunately, that is what this amendment would require the government to assume: zero harm, zero costs, zero danger, from carbon pollution and climate change. The truth is that unchecked climate change would have a catastrophic economic and human impact here and across the world. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment which ties the hands of several departments--certainly the Department of Energy, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, all of our independent agencies that are contained in the bill, like Denali and Northern Border--from making responsible financial decisions and basic oversight of Federal dollars going into North Carolina. I find it interesting that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle support this amendment, as they normally are such strong supporters of fiscal responsibility and government accountability and fiscal oversight. Prohibiting the Federal Government from being able to withhold or revoke funding in a particular State would abandon that principle. How do we know that contractors are meeting their obligations? How do we know that criminal activity is not occurring inside the State of North Carolina related to Federal expenditures in that State? If this amendment were accepted, the Department of Energy, the Army Corps of Engineers--these are huge contracting departments--would be prohibited from conducting investigations of performance issues related to contracts or financial assistance awards. The departments could not terminate financial assistance agreements for material noncompliance. I don't think that the gentleman wishes to promote irresponsibility, but I think that is what his amendment actually does. If an award winner wanted to terminate their relationship with one of the departments or agencies under our bill for whatever reason, the Federal Government could not accept that termination. This throws a wrench into every Federal project inside of your State. I don't think the gentleman really wants to do that. If an organization which receives funding, for example, from the Department of Energy commits fraud, the Department of Energy has no recourse. They can't report on the performance of the organization because it could prevent them from winning future awards. I can think of no greater irresponsible or unjust system than building on restrictions that deny the American people a proper functioning oversight by the Federal Government, including the literally billions of dollars that go into the State of North Carolina. Those don't only come from our committee or our subcommittee, but they are significant. I must oppose this amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I hate to disagree with the chairman of our subcommittee. But let me just say that the amendment actually reads: ``None of the funds made available by this act may be used to revoke funding previously awarded.'' ``None of the funds.'' That means there can be no oversight. If criminal activity is occurring, none of the funds may be used to revoke funding previously awarded. What kind of an amendment is this? This is a very irresponsible amendment, and it shouldn't be on this bill. If the gentleman has got some problem down there he wants to solve, we will be happy to work with him on that on. But I think to tie the hands of our government in making sure that every taxpayer dollar is properly managed and has oversight is really wrongheaded. Again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Pittenger amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, years ago, there were people that served in this body that denied that America should pass a Clean Water Act. Today, in many places in our country when we turn on the tap, we trust what we drink. We had to change our way of life. Yes, we had to make investments, but we produced a stronger country. There were those who fought against the Clean Air Act. You can go back and read the Record. There are always those folks who have difficulty embracing the future. This amendment blocks funding for the Department of Energy's Climate Model Development and Validation program. This is climate science denial at its worst. It used to be that people said, well, it is okay that industry dumps in the water. It kind of washes everything out somewhere. Well, when the bald eagle became an endangered species, it became pretty clear that all of that pollution was causing long-term damage. Now the world's top scientists are telling us that we have a rapidly closing window to reduce our carbon pollution before the catastrophic impacts of climate change cannot be avoided. So far, the world has already warmed by 0.9 degrees Celsius, and we are already seeing the effects of climate change. Most scientists agree that 2 degrees Celsius is the maximum amount we can warm without really dangerous tipping points, although many scientists now believe that even 2 degrees is far too much, given the effects we are already experiencing all around the world. But absent dramatic action, we are on track to warm 4 to 6 degrees Celsius by midcentury. That is more than 10 degrees Fahrenheit. Even with the pledges to reduce carbon emissions as part of COP 21, we are still in danger of experiencing the drastic consequences of climate change, including increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events and drought. The International Energy Agency has concluded that increased efforts are still needed--in addition to existing pledges--to stay within the 2-degree limit. We are already seeing the devastation from climate change, including, recently, the evacuation of climate refugees from the Isle de Jean Charles near New Orleans. So you sort of think to the world you knew versus the world of the future, and you have to embrace the future, and you have to help those who are going to follow us. There are multiple lines of evidence, including direct measurements, that life is changing. The projections that these models anticipate are critical as they provide the guideposts to understanding how quickly and how steeply the world needs to cut carbon pollution in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change. The goal of the Department of Energy's Climate Model Development and Validation program is to further improve the reliability of climate models and equip policymakers and citizens with tools to predict the current and future effects of climate change, such as sea level rise, extreme weather events, and drought. This amendment scraps this program. It says ``no'' to enhancing the reliability of our climate models. Who wouldn't want that? It says ``no'' to investing in the security of the people of this Nation and the Nation's assets themselves. It says ``no'' to improving our understanding of how the climate is changing, and it says ``no'' to informing policymakers about the consequences of unmitigated climate change. That is absolutely irresponsible and an outcome this Nation cannot afford. It is interesting. There is an author, Richard Louv, who has written a book, ``Last Child in the Woods.'' What it talks about is how America has become so technologically sophisticated that most people have lost a real connection to nature, especially our children, who spend 8 hours in front of a blue screen. But perhaps it is because of that technological advancement and lack of connection to nature that we do not have a population--including, perhaps, some who serve in this Chamber--that observe what nature is actually doing in her powerful force. I would urge our colleagues to read that book and to think a little bit about reconnecting to nature, paying attention to what the temperature is of the lake near you or the ocean near you. Pay attention to what is happening in our coastal communities. Pay attention to what is happening in agriculture and our ability to produce food for the future because of changes in weather. What is happening with rainfall? There is a lot going on. What happens to clouds in your region of the country? How close do they come to the Earth? When the rain falls, how severe are those weather events? These events are happening around our country and around our world. Mr. Chairman, I have to rise in opposition, obviously, to this amendment and urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment because I don't think it leads us into the future. I think it takes us back into the past, to a world that does not exist anymore. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Mr. Yoho

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of my dear friends of the WWII Memorial. It is with deepest sympathy I am unable to attend the Celebration of Life Ceremony to honor Ambassador Hadyn Williams, a champion of liberty's legacy. With this regret, I send a few words to remember Ambassador Williams and all he did to create the centerpiece Memorial, which preserves rightful attention to the greatest generation. Ambassador F. Hadyn Williams had a long and distinguished career in international development, diplomacy and public service, one that demonstrated a lifetime of integrity and a duty to country, which left a lasting legacy for future generations. I had the honor to work closely with Ambassador Williams. Together, we along with other great champions implemented the idea of honoring the 16 million brave and dedicated men and women who served in World War II--over 400,000 of whom never came home to their loved ones--with a glorious memorial on the National Mall--America's front yard--between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument. The five million people who visit the World War II Memorial every year owe a small debt of gratitude for Ambassador Williams' role in this tribute. Ambassador Williams had a remarkable lifetime of achievements--with service in World War II; in academia at the University of California, Berkeley and Tufts University, as a student and then as a professor and administrator; as a public servant, serving as a deputy assistant secretary in the Defense Department under both Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy; as a diplomat as the longest-serving President of the Asia Foundation; and as Chairman of the American Battle Monuments Commission's World War II Memorial Committee. Ambassador Williams will be remembered for his service and devotion to others, his vision, his commitment, and his contribution to honor our World War II veterans and to preserve this lasting memory. Ambassador Williams' memory will live on through the fruits of his achievements.