Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. As with the chairman of the subcommittee, I rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment. I like its intent, but not the means by which the able gentleman from Florida (Mr. Clawson) gets to his bottom line. I think our major objection on this side is cutting the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. While I do support the Corps' construction account-- and, just for the Record, the account that we have proposed for construction is $855 million over the 2017 budget request and $83.3 million over what is being expended this time. But we have a $60 billion backlog, $60 billion for what we need to do in the Corps throughout this country. So we have a problem there; so, I would therefore oppose the amendment and recommend a ``no'' vote. But maybe, in working with the gentleman, we can find ways in future years to increase the overall account again. But I truly appreciate his leadership and his efforts on this important issue. I thank the chairman for yielding.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I support the gentleman's amendment to strike section 108, and I thank Congressman Beyer of Virginia for offering it. The provision the gentleman seeks to strike is one of three egregious attacks on the Clean Water Act, including locking in place a state of confusion about the scope of pollution control programs and sacrificing water quality for small streams and wetlands that contribute to the drinking water of one in three Americans. I urge my colleagues to support the Beyer amendment. Freshwater is a precious resource, one which should be protected in the best scientific manner possible. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for doing something really important for the country through this amendment to clean up this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding and support his amendment strongly. It strikes a harmful provision that prevents the Corps from addressing deficiencies in regulatory uncertainties related to Clean Water Act regulations. Without this amendment, the bill would contribute to delays, uncertainty, and increased costs both for the government, for companies, and individuals who discharge into wetlands, streams, lakes, and other waters. It will increase delays in the implementation of important public works projects and lead to protracted litigation on the disparity between existing Federal regulations and two Supreme Court decisions. The provision that this amendment strikes does not apply to just this year. It applies to any subsequent Energy and Water Development Act precluding potential changes that may be necessary to protect public health and the environment, and ensuring that uncertainty continues indefinitely. I believe the amendment allows the Corps the needed flexibility to deal with the confusion that has surrounded Clean Water Act jurisdiction in the wake of the two Supreme Court decisions, and we should be allowing the Corps to take actions that address the Supreme Court's ruling, bringing clarity and certainty to the regulatory process, not prolonging the confusion. If this amendment is not passed, it could mean an estimated one-fifth of wetlands and 2 million miles of small streams will not be protected. I urge my colleagues to support the Beyer amendment. Freshwater is a precious resource, one which should be protected in the best scientific manner possible. We owe it to future generations.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney), who has fought so very hard on this issue.

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

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I appreciate Congressman Griffith's efforts here, but, unfortunately, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Let me just say that, in the base bill that we have worked very hard on, there are $645 million in the account for fossil energy. That is about $13 million more over the current fiscal year. In addition, it is $285 million above the budget request. So I think, if you put it in that frame, we have done quite well with difficult choices inside our bill. The energy efficiency and renewable energy account is already $248 million below this year and more than a billion below the budget request. So I would say to the gentleman that I don't think the offset you have provided is a very good one. We know that renewable energy is at the forefront of an energy transformation that is already happening across our country, and we do need a more balanced approach to energy. While I do support fossil energy research and development and, frankly, transition for communities that have been harmed by the transformation in the energy sector--coal communities and coal-shipping communities across this country--I really can't support this level of disproportionate funding. So I strongly oppose the amendment and do not agree with its offset. I would urge my colleagues to join me in a ``no'' vote. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I couldn't agree with Congressman Griffith more about the necessity of transitioning communities. When I look back to the 1990s when something called NAFTA passed--the North American Free Trade Agreement--we were promised that there would be a North American development bank and that any community that was harmed in the South or the North would be helped. The Federal Government never kept its word. It never kept its word. Go try to find that North American development bank today and we look at hollowed-out communities across this country. If we look at the coal communities in--and Ohio has a lot of coal. We actually have more Btus under the ground between Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, all the way to Illinois, than the Middle East has oil. It is just a little bit harder. So we look at these communities that have been so devastated, and the Federal Government kind of sat on the side. Yes, we had the Appalachian Regional Commission terribly underfunded without the kind of bonding and development authority that should exist. I look at the steel communities that I represent. People in my district are getting pink slips every day at our big steel companies because of imported steel, and the Federal Government sits on its hand here at the Federal level in the International Trade Commission and the National Economic office over at the National Security Council. It upsets me a great deal that we haven't been able to help communities so impacted. I hope that, for those communities that are suffering because of the transition in the energy sector partly due to the discovery of natural gas, quite frankly, in places like Ohio--and I am not sure about Virginia--we really need the type of transition program that we should have had back in the 1990s for the NAFTA communities and that we should have had for the steel communities. The Federal Government is just too far away from the places where we live to even see it sometimes. So I share the gentleman's passion on that, but I really don't think that we should take from the accounts that are providing some of the future answers. I hope that regions like yours could move into the new energy economy as well. Up in the Lake Erie area where I live, we are trying very, very hard to capture the wind. Lake Erie is the Saudi Arabia of wind, and it is part of our new future and part of a new grid. We hope to be very successful there. I hope that some of these new technologies could also burgeon in regions of Virginia. There is no reason that they can't. I believe the Department of Energy, the Department of Labor, the Department of Commerce, and all of our departments have an obligation to the communities that have been harmed because of policies that happen in the private sector or the public sector, but we haven't been so good at that as the Federal Government. So I reluctantly oppose the gentleman's amendment, but I understand his motivation. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Griffith amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The Acting Chair. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, it is interesting that a Member from Colorado, which is where the National Renewable Energy Laboratory--I would sure like to have that in Ohio--is headquartered. I have actually visited that site and have been so impressed by the basic research that has been done in so many arenas that has brought new products to market. When I look at the solar industry, for example, were it not for the photovoltaic research of the U.S. Department of Energy back in the early days, it would not now be employing more people than those who work in many of the other energy sectors put together. It is amazing to me that it is one of the fastest growing segments of our market. But the basic research that had to be done--the thin film research, the work on silicates, on cadmium tellurides, so many of the ingredients--frankly, there was no company that was able to take that risk in the past. And they certainly couldn't get the funding; I can guarantee you that. Some of this research started back in the 1980s. So I think that the energy efficiency and renewable energy programs are just terribly important. On the nuclear front, there is no private company that has figured out how to really handle the waste product from nuclear. We have to invest in nuclear energy to build a safer world for the future, and the Department of Energy does that. No private company takes that on. In fact, we have a lot of waste. There are environmental management projects across this country, hundreds of billions of dollars. We have to handle cleanup from past years and the cold war. No private company is able to do that on its own. That is something that is a legacy of our defense structure. I am really not quite sure what the gentleman's objective is here, but I don't want to take America backwards. I want her to move forward. We are now at 91 percent in terms of our ability to fund our energy use here in our country, compared to half that just several years ago. That is a real accomplishment. It is something that the public sector and the private sector are able to work on together. I really think that the gentleman's efforts are misguided, and I would have to oppose this amendment.

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

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

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I think Congresswoman Lujan Grisham has done such a phenomenal job here, and I appreciate her interest in the necessity of desalinization work and how important the Department of Energy is in finding a solution that is cost effective and the most advanced energy system we can have to desalinate as we move forward. I share her interest in finding funding for this important work, and, hopefully, in a conference situation, we can provide a way to provide some resources. I really applaud the gentlewoman for her path-breaking efforts on behalf of a very important issue.

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding, and I rise in support of the Polis amendment to increase funding for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. That office is one of the most forward-looking segments within the Department of Energy and the group that is driving the huge surge we are seeing across the country in energy innovation. The future we all envision is in renewable energy, smart grids, energy storage, and energy efficiency. One hundred and ninety countries made it clear to the world that they support this new future in Paris at the end of the last year, and the funding of EERE is critical to ensuring the U.S. leads the world into that future. Let me mention the solar energy account, in particular, is yielding serious benefits. The number of workers in this growing renewable sector has doubled over the last 5 years, and its rapid expansion shows no signs of slowing down, with solar projected to add 9.5 gigawatts of new energy this year, more than any other energy source. It employs more Americans than work on oil rigs and in gas fields, just in the solar sector. So I support this amendment to expand the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office and the increase in funding that Congressman Polis is offering for a clean energy future for all.

Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman very much for yielding and join him in opposing this, I think, well-intentioned amendment. The amendment would actually cut funding for the oversight of existing loans. I don't think, in view of some of the things that have happened in the past, that is the best course. The program has had a significant beneficial impact on innovative energy projects coast to coast that are generating energy today. Therefore, I would agree with the chairman in opposing the amendment. I urge my colleagues to support our efforts to vote ``no'' at this time.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this damaging rider which would block the Department of Energy from implementing or enforcing commonsense energy efficiency standards for light bulbs. I have the highest respect for Dr. Burgess, but not on this particular topic. This rider was a bad idea when it was first offered 5 years ago, and it is even more unsupportable now. Every claim made by proponents of this rider has been proven wrong. Dr. Burgess told us that the energy efficiency standards would ban incandescent light bulbs. That is simply false. You can go to any store today and see shelves of modern, energy-efficient, incandescent light bulbs that meet the standard. I have bought them myself. They are the same as the old bulbs except that they last longer, they use less electricity, and they save consumers money. We have heard for years that the energy efficiency standards restrict consumer choice. But if you have shopped for light bulbs lately, you know that simply isn't true. Modern incandescent bulbs, compact fluorescent light bulbs, and LEDs of every shape, size, and color are now available. Consumers have never had more choice. The efficiency standards spurred innovation that dramatically expanded options for consumers. Critics of the efficiency standards claimed 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 every year. That comes to $13 billion in savings nationwide every year. But this rider threatens those savings, and that is why consumer groups have consistently opposed this rider. Here is the reality. The 2007 consensus energy efficiency standards for light bulbs were enacted with bipartisan support and continue to receive 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 light bulbs in the United States that violate the efficiency standards. That is unfair to domestic manufacturers who have invested millions of dollars in the United States in those plants to make efficient bulbs here that meet the standards. Why on earth would we want to pass a rider that favors foreign manufacturers who ignore our laws and penalizes U.S. manufacturers who are following our laws? But it even gets worse. The rider now poses an additional threat to U.S. manufacturing. The bipartisan 2007 energy bill requires the Department of Energy to establish updated light bulb efficiency standards by January 1 of next year. It also provided that, if final updated standards are not issued by then, a more stringent standard of 45 lumens per watt automatically takes effect. Incandescent light bulbs currently cannot meet this backstop standard. This rider blocks DOE from issuing the required efficiency standards and ensures that the backstop will kick in. Ironically, it is this rider that could effectively ban the incandescent light bulb. The Burgess rider directly threatens existing light bulb manufacturing jobs in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, across our region. 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 constituents, and worsen pollution. 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 that that rider is harmful. I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the Burgess light bulb rider, no matter how well intended. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.