Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. Any proposal to sunset the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program or limit the pipeline of projects that may be eligible is shortsighted and should be rejected. Why? First, the program is a critical one for the American automotive industry and has supported its resurgence. They have issued more than $8 billion in loans to date, and these loans have resulted in the manufacture of more than 4 million fuel-efficient advanced vehicles, supported approximately 35,000 direct jobs across eight States, including California, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Kentucky, New York, and Tennessee, and saved more than 1.35 million gallons of gasoline. Not too bad. The success has been achieved with losses of only approximately 2 percent of a total portfolio of $32 billion for the loan programs office. That is a lower percent than most banks have on the loans that they make. What we are talking about here is higher level research, higher level investments in technologies that are yet being born. Why else should we reject this amendment? Instituting an arbitrary and immediate deadline for applications to this program would result in the Department losing billions of dollars in loan authority itself. The program currently has billions in loan requests in the pipeline from both automakers and component manufacturers for projects in 10 States. Thirdly, capping the program of eligible projects will hinder the Department's ability to issue new loans to support domestic manufacturing of advanced vehicles especially at a time when we are asking the industry to meet rising fuel economy standards. It is really amazing what has been done just in the last 15 years. When we look at some of the vehicles coming out now, we are seeing vehicles like the Cruze, 33 miles a gallon. Some are going up to 40, some to 50. It is really amazing what has happened, the transformation that is happening in this industry that we are living through directly. I oppose the gentleman's amendment because I really do believe innovation has always led us into the future. This is the kind of program that can provide the capital necessary to expand our domestic manufacturing when so much of it is being offshored. It is a major issue in the Presidential election this year in both political parties, how we are going to restore manufacturing in this country. We have to do it through innovation. We have to do it in sectors that are muscle sectors like the automotive and truck industry that are so vital and produce real wealth for this country, not imported wealth, but wealth that we produce ourselves through all the componentry, the thousands and thousands and thousands of components that go into these vehicles, and the fuel efficiency that makes them competitive in the marketplace of today. I oppose the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I oppose the gentleman's amendment. It is just one more instance where the majority is saddling the consumer with ever-increasing energy bills. We know how the standards have really saved consumers money over the years. I have some figures here that are very interesting. A typical household saves about $216 a year off their energy bills now as a result of renewed standards. As people replace their appliances with newer models, they can expect to save more than $453 annually by 2030. The cumulative utility bill savings to consumers from all standards in effect since 1987 are estimated to be nearly $1 trillion by 2020 and grow to nearly $2 trillion through 2030. Invention does matter. And the application of that to our daily life really matters. The efficiency standards have spurred innovation that dramatically expanded options for consumers. It is time to choose common sense over rigid ideology, and it is time to listen to the manufacturing companies, consumer groups, and efficiency advocates, who all agree this rider is harmful. I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the Buck amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I also oppose this amendment, which will reduce jobs in our country and hurt the middle class. There will be less investment in science, environmental cleanup, energy research and development, all of which create the future in this country, and have substantial returns on investments. Since 2003, by the way, the United States has spent $2.3 trillion on importing foreign petroleum. This is a vast shift of wealth. That is the big shift of wealth, and thousands upon thousands of jobs from our country elsewhere. This amendment only exacerbates this shift of wealth from the American middle class. The bill funds support in science and R&D activities necessary for our competitiveness. The world is becoming more competitive, not less. Energy is at the center of that. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentleman's amendment. Really, this provision doesn't belong on this appropriations bill. It is an issue best considered by the Foreign Affairs Committee. This amendment would prevent the Department from spending any fiscal 17 funds to purchase heavy water produced in Iran and would undermine the Iran deal. This transaction provides the United States industry with a critical product while enabling Iran to sell some of its excess heavy water as contemplated in the agreement and further ensuring that this product will not be used to develop a nuclear weapon, which is the objective that we all sought when we supported the agreement. Heavy water is needed here in our country. We stopped producing it in 1988 and now buy what we need from India and other countries. A portion of this heavy water will be used at the Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and by manufacturers for fiberoptic cable, MRI machines, and semiconductors. Most importantly, U.S. purchase of this heavy water prevents Iran from selling it to those who would choose to use it for the wrong reasons. Mr. Chairman, as I have stated, I object to this amendment as proposed. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the DeSantis amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. KAPTUR. I am happy to hear the gentleman's deep interest in that corridor of Illinois and Mississippi, and I would look forward to the gentleman's assistance on trying to prevent the Asian carp from moving further north in those channels and into the entire Great Lakes system, destroying our natural fish population. So I just wanted to put that on the record, and I thank the gentleman so much for showing an interest in both the infrastructure and the environmental restoration in those corridors.

Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentlewoman yield?

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I have great respect for Congressman Garamendi. I know how thoughtful he is, and normally I do support his efforts. I have to say that, in this instance, I think the priority has to be on completing construction of MOX. I think there was a reference made tonight that 67 percent of the construction is already completed. 90 percent of the equipment has been procured. 50 percent of the equipment is onsite. 1,800 people are directly employed. 4,000 American contractors and suppliers are being utilized in 43 States. And MOX is the only proven pathway we have for disposing of the 34 metric tons of U.S. weapons-grade plutonium in a pragmatic way. I have to say that one of my goals in supporting this effort--having worked now with the Department of Energy on a number of programs, my goodness, it seems never to be able to finish anything. So we talk about Yucca Mountain--the chairman of the subcommittee made significant reference to that--billions of dollars and a hole sits in the ground unused. Back when Jimmy Carter was President, he had a goal of putting solar panels on the Department of Energy. It didn't happen until recently. I mean, it has been three decades, four decades, before they could even finish something like that. We look at Hanford and the cleanup that is necessary there. I mean, how many more centuries is it going to take? The one thing we can say about MOX, yes, it is treaty required and we are trying to meet our treaty obligations, but it is moving toward completion. I mean, this is a miracle for the Department of Energy. Perhaps fast reactor might be better. But how do we know it won't cost an equal amount or more? We know South Carolina wants this. The Congressman from the region is here. If we talk about WIPP, how do we know they even want the material? We have all these problems like Yucca Mountain. We have material we want to bury in the ground, and then the people say in the State that you build the facility: Well, now we don't want it. So, frankly, of all the subcommittees I have served on or full committee--I have served on a majority of them--I have never seen a department that can't get its act together and get the work done. So as much as I respect you, Congressman Garamendi, and you are right on so many efforts, I think to stop this project now with more than two-thirds of it constructed and hundreds of contracts let with vendors in 43 States--canceling those would expose our government to major liability and court costs from lawsuits and so forth. The House bill prioritizes funds for national security to allow the United States to uphold its worthy nonproliferation and disarmament goals, which we share, and focuses on completing the MOX facility at the Savannah River site in the most cost-effective manner that the Department is capable of doing. I really think that we need to get it done. We are close to doing that. We don't need another disaster sitting out there that is unused or this delay and stop and delay and hesitation and uncertainty and so forth. We need to complete this. We need to take care of the spent plutonium in a very responsible manner. I share the chairman's perspective on this and continue to hold the author of the amendment--Congressman Garamendi--in the highest regard. I share your desire for nonproliferation. I think one of the best things we can do is get this material processed and leave the world a safer place in our time and generation. I do oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I learned that, in the Peoria region, all the natural fish have disappeared now as a result of the invasion of the Asian carp there.

Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I would commit to working with the very able gentlewoman from New Hampshire to see what progress we could make on this very important issue.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank Chairman Simpson for his bipartisan approach in preparing this bill. I also thank Chairman Hal Rogers and Ranking Member Nita Lowey for their efforts throughout. To our dedicated staff--Donna Shahbaz and Taunja Berquam, the Republican and Democratic clerks, as well as the rest of the committee staff: Matt Anderson, Angie Giancarlo, Loraine Heckenberg, and Perry Yates--their countless long hours, late nights, weekends, and thoughtful insight are so critical to helping America prepare this legislation. This bill funds transformative programs that unlock America's full economic potential, critical water resource projects, navigation and port operability, and breakthrough science advancements that are necessary for America's strategic and competitive posture. This bill undergirds our national defense through superior weapons, naval reactor research, and nonproliferation activities--all priorities that unite rather than divide us. Chairman Simpson worked hard to incorporate the interests of Members from both parties. As a result, the bill's funding reflects priorities from both sides of the aisle. The chairman's efforts resulted in a bill which, with respect to funding levels, is reasonable; although, the trade-offs are not ideal. The bill provides an increase of $259 million over the 2016 levels. It allows for stronger investments in the Army Corps of Engineers for critical projects in the Everglades and Great Lakes as well as additional funding to address flooding in areas like Houston. Notably, for the people of northern Ohio, the bill meets the need to comply with State law prior to the open lake disposal of dredged materials. The bill also provides robust funding for many areas at the Department of Energy. It is sad, however, that the majority would jeopardize this good start by adding in ill-suited ideological or non-germane riders on the Clean Water Act, guns on Army Corps' lands, National Ocean Policy, and the California drought. I should not have to remind our majority colleagues that similar provisions imperiled the passage of this bill in the past. In fiscal year 2016, nearly all of the Democratic Members of the House voted against this bill with far fewer poison pill riders. The administration is on record with veto threats over nearly identical language. As such, I cannot support this bill in its current form. Every year, this important bill sets the path for America's energy future, and I am happy to note that, more than ever before, America's course is set toward the true north of energy independence. In 2015, America produced 91 percent of the total energy consumed. This represents the 10th consecutive year of declining net energy imports. This translates into freedom. Significant strides toward America's energy security should be applauded, but we must not lose our momentum by resting on our laurels. To finally free ourselves from our energy dependence, as well as to drastically cut dangerous carbon emissions, we must strongly support the Department of Energy's efforts to embrace the future. I am disappointed by the $248 million cut, therefore, to the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, which is leading the charge into the new energy economy against stiff global competition from Europe and Asia. The solar energy account, in particular, yields serious benefits, with the solar industry projected to add 9.5 gigawatts of new energy this year--more than any other source. I am proud that my own district is active in this energy revolution, with First Solar, founded in Toledo, Ohio, the Nation's current leading solar company. Wind energy is also expanding in northern Ohio, where the Great Lakes have the capacity to become the Saudi Arabia of wind, especially Lake Erie. Cleveland is poised to install the first national offshore wind turbines in a freshwater environment, and that is appropriate, given it was Cleveland where the first electric wind turbine was invented a century ago. I would like to reiterate my concerns over the controversial riders that threaten not only the ultimate enactment of this bill but also our most precious resource--water. These provisions' inclusion does a disservice in our work, particularly given the serious water challenges many parts of our country face. While I have concerns with the measure before us, I would like to express my deep appreciation for the chairman's hard work with us on so many issues. The gentleman from Idaho has ensured that the Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee continues its tradition of bipartisanship, and he has been a gentleman throughout, as always. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda), a very hardworking member of our subcommittee.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I just want to inquire how much time remains on this side before we move forward.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster), who is a very hardworking member of the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I rise for a couple reasons. One is to wish my noble brother well back home. The other is to yield to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster) to enter into a colloquy.