Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chair, I join the chairman in opposing this amendment. It is, truly, a blunt cut--5 percent to the Department of Energy from its current level with no analysis, no consultation, no consideration of impact. It is just a blunt cut. It would actually mean about 700 people who would be fired at headquarters, at field offices, even at our Power Marketing Administrations across the West. Layoffs of this magnitude would profoundly impede the Department of Energy's ability to oversee its nuclear security responsibilities, its science and energy and environmental cleanup mandates. I strenuously oppose this amendment and urge the gentleman to bring back a more thoughtful amendment at some point if he wishes, but I don't support the blunt cut.

Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, the Black amendment would prohibit financial assistance to any State or political subdivision that is acting in contravention of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. But this is an energy and water bill. This isn't a part of our bill. I rise in opposition to the amendment because it is, frankly, nongermane. The Department of Energy isn't involved. The Army Corps of Engineers or the Bureau of Reclamation or the regional independent agencies that are under the jurisdiction of this bill have nothing to do with the concern that the gentlewoman raises. Why are we debating immigration policy on an Energy and Water Appropriations bill? It doesn't make any sense. Frankly, the amendment would prohibit funding for State and local governments that have policies against the sharing of information related to immigration status, but State and local law enforcement routinely and automatically share biometric information with ICE that is used to determine immigration status. They do so through the same electronic system that shares these biometrics with the FBI for checks against the criminal databases. So even if this amendment were germane, I don't think the amendment is necessary or would do what the gentlewoman believes that it would do. Even more to the point, if the premise of the amendment is that local law enforcement agencies aren't notifying ICE prior to releasing from custody individuals who fit ICE immigration enforcement priorities, then the amendment is misguided because the Department of Homeland Security has established a priority enforcement program, known as the PEP, designed to better work with State and local law enforcement to take custody of criminal aliens who pose a danger in public safety before they are released into our communities. Prior to that program's establishment, 377 jurisdictions refused to honor some or all of ICE detainers. But as of early this year, 277 of those jurisdictions, or 73 percent, have now signed up to participate in that program by responding to ICE requests for notification, honoring detainer requests, or both. So the Department of Homeland Security is making good progress in soliciting the participation of State and local law enforcement in the PEP program, and we should support them in those efforts and avoid muddling the issue and reject this amendment. The Department of Homeland Security is not a part of the Appropriations Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee; and it is doubtful that this amendment would have any effect, even if it were germane to the bill and not subject to a point of order. Because this biometric sharing system is in effect across the country, no jurisdiction currently refuses to share information about immigration with ICE. So, as a result, it is difficult to see how this amendment would have any effect whatsoever, even if it were offered on the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Committee or the Department of Homeland Security bills. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Frankly, it is not germane to this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. I appreciate the chairman yielding to me. I agree with his opposition to this amendment. Why blame one of the best parts of our government, in my opinion, for Congress not doing its job? I am always impressed with the Energy Information Administration. Their data is stellar. They are professionally run. The business community looks to them. Frankly, the global energy community looks to them. I think the amendment is shortsighted and would eliminate one of the best, most important sources of information that guides all of our decisions. They are so precise. The data that they present also can be easily understood. They have maps. They have charts. They have continuous data over a number of years. I think the gentleman wants to solve a problem, but I think that one could say that this amendment might be penny wise and pound foolish because, if you have had any experience with the Energy Information Administration, you know how excellent they really are and their work is. We depend on it in order to make solid decisions to save money or to make decisions that are sound rather than unsound. Don't rip the heart out of one of the most important administrations that we have at the Federal level on the energy front. I thank the chairman for yielding. I would urge that this amendment be defeated.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, let me just end by saying, this country has a long and storied history of supporting civil rights and worker rights, and that spirit was clearly violated last week during the vote on the spending bill. We know that businesses should operate under strict rules of fairness and equality, and, certainly, the Federal Government should. I am just grateful that we could all be here this evening and try to find a way to move America forward and to make progress, not just for the people of this country, but for humankind. This amendment will ensure that we are able to achieve a fully equitable workplace and society. Mr. Chairman, 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 don't have a copy of the amendment in front of me, but from what I have listened to the gentleman, it sounds like discrimination in the guise of religious freedom, and I would hope that isn't what the gentleman intends. I have just been given language: ``None of the funds made available by this Act shall be used in contravention of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.'' I don't have full confidence that the equal protection of the laws for the faith-based community are fully considered in this amendment, and I would have to oppose the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment and want to begin by saying that ideological riders have no place on appropriation bills, certainly on this bill, and, frankly, I don't believe that this is even germane to the Energy and Water Development bill. This amendment is just the first of many possible attempts to tie the hands of the administration from implementing an extremely important international agreement that will result in exactly the opposite of what the gentleman infers. The plan of action that was agreed to by several countries, P5+1, closed the four pathways through which Iran could get to a nuclear weapon in less than a year. We do not gain anything by putting limitations on United States' ability to engage or monitor Iran's compliance with the agreement. The President has repeatedly said that he will continue to take aggressive steps to counter any activities in violation of existing sanctions, and this includes restrictions on certain nuclear-related transfers, conventional arms, and ballistic missile items, certain asset freezes and travel bans, as well as cargo inspections. Today, international inspectors are on the ground, and Iran is being subjected to the most comprehensive, intrusive inspection regime ever negotiated to monitor a nuclear program. Inspectors will remain to monitor Iran's key nuclear facilities 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. For decades to come, inspectors will have access to Iran's entire nuclear supply chain. That is an incredible achievement. The Department of Energy's vast expertise in the nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear safeguards and security, and nuclear materials plays a critical role in informing and ensuring that Iran is meeting its nuclear commitments. To date, experts at the Department of Energy headquarters, seven national laboratories, and two Department of Energy nuclear sites have been actively involved in reaching and now implementing the agreement. These experts will continue to support the International Atomic Energy Agency's monitoring and verification activities worldwide and are vital as the United States works with our P5+1 and European Union partners to ensure viability into Iran's nuclear program. Why would we proactively cut off our nonproliferation program and experts from working to prevent Iran to achieve nuclear weapons? Isn't that counter to our own national security interests? In other words, if Iran tries to cheat, if they try to build a bomb covertly, we will catch them, the world will catch them, unless we here in Congress undo these efforts and adopt amendments such as the one we are discussing now. The bottom line is this: Iran was steadily expanding its nuclear program. The agreement has now cut off every single path to build a bomb. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this harmful amendment and encourage my colleagues to oppose as well. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chair, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee has been absolutely unrelenting in her representation of Houston and of the serious situation that is faced there by the citizenry and leaders because of the flooding. What a tremendous voice she is for the people whom she represents. There isn't a time that I see her in the elevators or walking around that she doesn't ask me about this bill and about wanting to come down and amend it to make sure that it is sensitive to the needs of Houston. I just wanted to put that on the record.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, this amendment is actually costly, inefficient, and it rolls back progress in a department that has really been experiencing tremendous leadership under Dr. Ernest Moniz. The Mullin amendment would stop the Department of Energy from proposing or finalizing any rule that may cost more than $100 million annually, the Congressman says. Mr. Chair, this is just another attempt to ensure that agencies are unable to enact important rules and regulations that protect consumers and benefit our Nation. What if that had been done back when the Clean Water Act was first passed? We would have had communities across this country pumping sewage into their kitchens. At the DOE alone, the Mullin amendment would stall 14 rules that are currently in progress, a third of which are consensus agreements that the DOE has worked with industry to finalize. The amendment would also waste valuable manpower and resources for both the DOE and the industries involved in these consensus agreements. This makes no sense. We need to move on with the business of America. Taking a myopic view of our Nation's regulatory practices is nothing new for this majority. Time and again, we have seen appropriation riders and authorizing legislation that only looks at the costs that are associated with agency rules and that completely ignores the associated benefits to our country. This amendment is no different. These proposals overlook the extensive review process that already exists for rules. For example, every new rule is already scrutinized up and down by numerous Federal agencies as well as by key stakeholders and the public through very, very extensive input that agencies seek. Let me explain. For economically significant rules, an agency must provide the Office of Management and Budget with an assessment and, to the extent possible, with a quantification of the benefits as well as of the costs of a proposed rule. In accordance with Executive Order No. 12866, the agency has to justify the costs associated with the rule, and these costs are justified with benefits, which is something the Mullin amendment appears to think doesn't exist, but that is simply false. For example, in his 2015 analysis of the estimated costs and benefits of significant Federal regulations, the OMB estimated that, over the last decade, the benefits of these rules outweighed the economic costs by nine to one--and that is OMB. These benefits have translated into real money for the American taxpayer. As a result of standards established by the DOE, a typical American household already saves over $200 a year on its energy bill. That comes in different forms. Whether it is a more efficient refrigerator or whether it is light bulbs or whether it is insulation, we all know the benefits. Besides economic benefits, these standards provide benefits to our environment and the well-being of our communities. The 40 new or updated standards issued by the DOE will assist in reducing carbon emissions by over 2 million metric tons through 2030, and will help this Nation curb climate change, which we all know threatens the health of our environment as well as of our communities. Republicans should stop trying to undermine the rulemaking process. They should stop ignoring the real-world benefits of these rules to society and the progress that we are making as a country. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I urge Members to oppose the gentleman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I am opposed to the amendment as the provision interferes with the standard practice spanning administrations of both parties and raises potential constitutional concerns. It is standard practice for agencies processing Freedom of Information Act requests to confer with other executive branch entities with equities, including the White House, prior to releasing documents. Agencies refer documents to the White House just as they refer documents to other agencies. The practice of agencies consulting with the White House prior to Freedom of Information Act requests regarding White House equities is longstanding, spanning administrations of both parties. The Reagan administration issued a memorandum in 1988 directing such consultation. Finally, the provision could interfere with the President's ability to protect privileged information and thereby could raise constitutional concerns in some applications. This is just one more instance of the majority prioritizing message amendments rather than getting on with the hard work of legislating. I oppose this amendment. It has no place on an appropriations bill and should be defeated. 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, the gentleman has hit a very soft spot with me here, the automotive and trucking industries, so vital to my area of the country and so vital to the whole economy. Actually, the manufacturing part of America, as it recovers, is lifting us to new heights with economic growth. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment because, again, it takes America backward, not forward. This amendment seeks to prohibit funding for the Department of Energy's 21st Century Clean Transportation Plan, which is a fantastic initiative which would set America on a long-term path to achieving our economic and climate goals. I am telling you, when you see some of what is being done with new materials science, with new composites, with metals and plastics technologies, I can go from Ford's Ecoboost engine, to Chrysler's new vehicles, to Dana's new axle plant being built in the Midwest, to General Motors and the wonderful work that they are doing at Brook Park. One plant after another, you can see the results of innovation where the Department of Energy, working with the private sector, is bringing the future to us every day. The 21st Century Clean Transportation Plan would scale up clean transportation research and development, critical for the clean transportation systems of the future. Did you know that in the internal combustion engine we still do not understand how fuel actually burns? The Department of Energy is doing wonderful research to try to help important companies like Cummins Engine figure out how fuel is actually used in those engines to make them more efficient. We have to talk about reducing the cost of batteries and developing low-carbon fuels such as biofuels. We don't have all the answers. Industry alone doesn't do it alone because some of this is basic research. We also are involved in funding the development of regional low- carbon fueling infrastructure, including charging stations for electric vehicles for those people who choose to purchase those and pumps for hydrogen fuel cell cars. Yes, we are inventing the future. You know what? It feels pretty good. Finally, it would investigate future mobility and intelligent transportation systems like vehicle connectivity and self-driving cars. Last week the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association was up here, and I went over to the northeastern part of the city, drove a Peterbilt truck with Bendix technology and with the automatic braking systems that are just incredible in a vehicle that has a cubic ratio of about 480 cubic inches to that engine. What an incredible piece of engineering that is. The Department of Energy is always driving us into the future, and that is where we need to go. Our Nation has always been a leader on innovation. To sustain this pace, we must continue to invest in programs like the 21st Century Clean Transportation Plan, which drives our economy forward. The automotive industry and all the related suppliers, including trucks, represent about one out of every seven jobs in this country. We are in stiff competition with markets that are closed, with markets that try to target our industry and snuff them out of existence. I think that we have to do everything possible. I co-chair the House Automotive Caucus here along with Congressman Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania, and I would have to say that the gentleman's amendment does not take us forward, but backward. I would urge my colleagues to oppose it very, very strongly.

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

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