Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. KAPTUR. Could I just ask for clarification? Which of your amendments are you addressing in your arguments now? It was our understanding the gentleman was addressing the MOX facility. Are you addressing that or your prior amendment?

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

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

Ms. KAPTUR. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I want to share a story. I was out at one of our energy labs in California and walked into a research lab, a Cummins engine was up on the boards. I said, What is going on in here? The answer was, We are trying to understand the science of combustion. I said, You mean it is 2014, and we don't understand that yet? They said, No, Congresswoman, we really don't know what happens inside an internal combustion chamber. They were studying what happens when fuel ignites inside that chamber so they could make it more energy efficient. I was surprised to learn that every single automotive company in this country depends on the results of that research, and Cummins is in the lead. I want to say to the gentleman, I come from automotive America. When the industry fell to its knees in 2008 because we have never had a trade policy that opens closed markets like Japan and Korea and China, I thought to myself, I never thought I would live to see this day. After the wise decision of a majority of this Congress and the Obama administration, we lifted the automotive industry of this country out of the dregs. I have watched it recover with vehicles like the Cruze and with the Wrangler, which is leading the list. When I look at what Ford is doing in terms of its EcoBoost engine, I see an industry being reborn in our Nation. The economic growth that comes with it, the incredible muscle that it provides inside the spine of this economy--not tangential growth, but real wealth, real wealth being created, again, across this country in this very important industry--I wouldn't do anything at this point in American history with the closed markets we are facing abroad not to support advanced technology in this country. What we are competing against in other places are countries disguising themselves as companies, and they are able to subsidize their industry, close their markets, and prevent even our parts going into their original equipment. We can succeed most importantly by advancing automotive technology, advanced vehicle technology. This particular program allows the component suppliers, as well as the original equipment, to benefit. I can tell you, though, the companies do research themselves; they don't do the kind of basic research that is necessary to provide the incredible breakthroughs that can come through the Department of Energy. If I said to you 25 years ago, ``Would you believe that 10 percent of gasoline blends are ethanol and renewable fuels,'' you would probably say, ``Congresswoman, you have been staying up too late too many nights of the week.'' In fact, it has happened. Now, we are going to move to a 15 percent renewable blend. Who would have thought that would be possible? Who would have thought we could get 40-mile-a-gallon vehicles on the road? We are moving toward that now, flexible fuel. That is not by accident. This program supports just what it says, advanced technology vehicles manufacturing. Given concerns that have been expressed by my colleagues regarding appropriate oversight of these programs, I think the net effect of your amendment is going to be to eliminate oversight of this program, which I don't think we want to do. I think we want to make it work for America's sake. I oppose your amendment, and I urge its defeat.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the chairman very much, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. I strongly oppose this damaging rider by my good friend, Congressman Burgess of Texas, because it 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 4 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 lightbulbs, but that simply is false. You can go to the store today and see shelves of modern, energy-efficient incandescent lightbulbs that meet the standard. They are the same as the old bulbs, except that they last longer, use less electricity, and save consumers money. We have heard for years that the energy efficiency standards restrict consumer choice. But if you have shopped for lightbulbs lately, which I have, you know that isn't true either. Modern incandescent bulbs, compact fluorescent lightbulbs, and LEDs of every shape, size, and color are now available. Consumers 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 is $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 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. This is unfair to domestic producers 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 even gets worse. The rider now poses an 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, 2017. 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 lightbulbs currently cannot meet this backstop standard. This rider blocks the Department of Energy 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 lightbulb. The Burgess rider directly threatens existing lightbulb manufacturing jobs in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Illinois, to name but three. 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. 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 Burgess lightbulb rider. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman and I share a great desire to prevent the spread of Iran's nuclear capabilities, but the only thing that, unfortunately, your amendment does is endanger security, including America's security. We can differ on how we work with Iran on the broader issue of conditions for an agreement on sanctions and their nuclear program, but that is not the issue we are debating here today. What we are debating here today is the nonproliferation program at the Department of Energy. Stopping the spread of dangerous materials from the Republic of Iran is in our Nation's interest regardless of the outcome of the broader discussion. While there are currently no plans to work in Iran and no funding that directly supports work in Iran, let me give you a few examples of what your amendment would stop, would preclude: One, the Department of Energy's nonproliferation program might be asked to engage with Iran to facilitate the removal of excess low- enriched uranium or heavy water from Iran. Such an engagement could necessitate contracts to arrange for the packaging, shipment, and disposition of such materials and would be prevented by the proposed amendment. Second, the Department of Energy's nonproliferation program might also be asked to engage with Iran to strengthen Iran's nuclear safety, nuclear security, or nuclear safeguard practices. Such engagement could require contracts to provide technical expertise or support logistical arrangements and would be prevented by your amendment. There may be some who want to use any bill, including our bill, to make political points, but shouldn't we be more concerned about endangering American lives and the lives of other innocents around the world? Wouldn't you prefer that this material be under lock and key in the United States, for example, or with one of our allies than have it stored in Iran? I can only speculate that our security practices are much better. This amendment has no place in this bill, and I urge its defeat. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this amendment because it is sort of an untargeted proposal, and our budget in many places on this bill is very tight. We know the net effect will be to reduce jobs and hurt the middle class in a sector where America needs help, and that is energy independence and the modernization of our infrastructure. The result of the amendment will be less investment in water resource infrastructure all over this country at a time when global trade is increasing. Energy research and development programs, which lead us to future energy, not past energy resources, which create good jobs and have substantial returns on investment, will be harmed. At a time when unemployed Americans lose jobless benefits and when many young families struggle just to survive, we should be creating jobs and securing the American Dream through investing in our energy future, including innovation and investments in the ground in every ``all of the above'' energy sector we have, not tearing it down. Just since 2003, the United States has spent $2.3 trillion in importing foreign petroleum. Think about that one. This is a vast shift of wealth, and thousands upon thousands of jobs are connected to energy production from our country. This amendment only exacerbates this shift of wealth from the American middle class to offshore. It is not something I support, and I doubt the gentleman really wants to support that. This bill funds critical water resource projects; it supports science activities necessary to breakthroughs to lead us to a new energy future; and it contributes, importantly, to our national defense through vital weapons, naval reactor research, and the nonproliferation funding we had been discussing earlier this evening. We must make certain decisions to lead our country forward. There are a lot more people who live in this country than lived here in 2008 or 2003. Also, one of the reasons that we have a little bit of uptick in some of the accounts is, there are actually more American people now, so we have got to do some things in terms of the ports. Our ports silt up. We have got to get that out of there in order that we can get larger ships into our ports carrying more goods. We can't live in the past. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment. Let's take America to the future and not backwards.

Ms. KAPTUR

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, when a company wants to export liquefied natural gas, LNG, it has to submit an application with the Department of Energy. For export to countries with a free trade agreement with the United States, the Department of Energy must grant the applications without modification or delay. For export to countries without a free trade agreement, the Department of Energy must approve an export application unless it finds that the proposed export will not be consistent with the public interest. To make this determination, the Department of Energy evaluates a range of factors when reviewing an application, including economic impacts, international considerations, U.S. energy security, and environmental effects. The Rothfus amendment prohibits the Department of Energy from even considering one of the most important factors; that is, the impact of LNG exports on climate change. The world's leading scientists are unequivocal: climate change is already happening on all continents and across the oceans and will get much worse if we do not act to cut our emissions of carbon and other greenhouse gas gases. That means that we need to scrutinize the energy infrastructure decisions that we make today for their impacts on climate change in the future. Every decision to build a new LNG export terminal has climate implications. We need to understand and weigh those effects. Whether exporting LNG will have a positive or negative impact on global greenhouse gas emissions is a complex but critical question. Natural gas combustion for electricity emits less carbon pollution than coal. And that is good. Proponents of LNG exports argue that these exports will displace coal consumption in other countries, which could produce a climate benefit. That is good. But LNG exports will raise natural gas prices in the United States, which could increase coal consumption and carbon pollution from coal- fired power plants. LNG exports also would drive new domestic natural gas production in the United States. Coming from Ohio, I can guarantee you, this would increase emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, unless we take measures to control that pollution at the wellhead and throughout the natural gas system. It is a great problem to have but one we need to meet. In a carbon-constrained world, we need to understand and consider the climate impacts of key energy policy decisions, such as building new LNG export terminals and exporting America's natural gas. The Rothfus amendment takes a head-in-the-sand approach, I am sorry to say. The Department of Energy has completed a report examining lifecycle carbon emissions from LNG. This amendment says that the Department of Energy can't consider those findings of climate impacts when making a public interest determination. Considering climate impacts is not going to slow down the review process. It makes no sense to require the Department of Energy to make a determination without the benefit of all the facts. Let's make enlightened decisions. Ignoring climate change will not make it go away. Quite the opposite. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Let's move to the future, not the past. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. The Gosar amendment blocks funding for the Department of Energy's Climate Model Development and Validation program. This is climate science denial at its worst. The world's top scientific institutions 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 already warmed by 0.8 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 effects, although many scientists now believe that even 2 degrees is far too much, given the effects we are already seeing. But absent dramatic action, we are on track to warm 4 to 6 degrees Celsius by midcentury. That is more than 10 degrees Fahrenheit. The International Energy Agency has concluded that if the world does not take action to reduce carbon pollution by 2017, just 3 years from now, then it will be virtually impossible to limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius. How do we know all of this? There are multiple lines of evidence, including direct measurements. But scientists also use sophisticated computer models of how the atmosphere and oceans work and how they respond to different atmosphere concentrations of heat-trapping gases. For projections of future emissions and their impacts, scientists have made numerous advances by collaborating across academic fields, including climatology, chemistry, biology, economics, energy dynamics, agriculture, scenario building, and risk management. These projections are critical, as they provide guideposts to understand 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, which we know is happening, extreme weather events, and drought. Mr. Gosar's amendment scraps this program. It says no to enhancing the reliability of our climate models. It says no to improving our understanding of how the climate is changing. It says no to informing policymakers about the consequences of unmitigated climate change. That is absolutely irresponsible. The amazing thing is the base bill already zeroes out funding for this program. But apparently that wasn't enough to satisfy the Republicans' climate denial. So Mr. Gosar has offered this amendment to just reiterate the point that the House Republicans reject the overwhelming scientific evidence about climate change. I urge my colleagues to oppose this redundant amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Ms. KAPTUR. I rise to oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa). This amendment makes a significant change to the Clean Water Act regulations, one we should not be making late at night in an appropriations bill. It deserves thoughtful consideration. I think the gentleman probably would agree with that. Mr. Chairman, under current law and regulation, activities that convert wetlands that occur as part of existing, ongoing farming, ranching, and silviculture activities do not require a section 404 wetlands permit. Let me repeat that for my colleagues. The Clean Water Act explicitly exempts certain activities from regulation, and these include normal agricultural activities like plowing fields, planting and harvesting crops, and maintaining irrigation and drainage ditches. Those exemptions were added by Congress in 1977. The 1977 law created the list of activity-based exemptions from normal farming, ranching, and forestry activities; but it also included safeguards to ensure that these exempted activities were not exploited by large-scale commercial interests. The regulations implementing those exemptions were completed in 1986 during the Reagan administration. The underlying fiscal year 2016 Energy and Water Appropriations bill before us already includes language in section 106 affirming that these activities exempted by Congress 38 years ago continue to be exempt. It clearly states that none of the funds made available by this act may be used to require a permit when these activities are conducted. The gentleman from California wants to go further than the language already in the bill with his amendment. In his view, wetlands should be able to be filled even when a farm has been converted to another use or farm fields have lain idle so long that modifications to the hydrology are necessary to conduct operations. I say to my colleague from California, it is hard to understand how any discharge can be normal for an operation that isn't established. Mr. Chairman, let me tell my colleague why this concerns me. According to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, in my home State, since the late 18th century, 90 percent of Ohio's wetland resources have been destroyed or degraded through draining, filling, or other modification. Because of the valuable functions the remaining wetlands perform, it is imperative to ensure that all impacts to wetlands are properly mitigated. Wetlands help filter impurities from water. Sediment settles out of runoff, and contaminants bind to plant surfaces in wetlands resulting in improved water quality. Wetlands perform other valuable functions, including reducing flood flow and shoreline erosion control. They are almost like lungs. They are the lungs of the Earth and connect the land to the water. In Ohio, we also depend upon our wetlands as haven for rare and endangered plants, and one-third of all the endangered species depends on wetlands for survival. Many wetlands are important fish spawning and nursery areas, as well as nesting, resting, and feeding areas for waterfowl. We should make certain that any changes we make to wetlands policy that may result in the destruction of these remaining very important ecological areas are evaluated carefully and we do not overturn nearly 40 years of policy lightly. It is for these reasons, Mr. Chairman, that I must respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment. I urge my colleagues to do so as well, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Japan's Prime Minister addressed Congress. Each U.S. President has their Japan opening initiative. All fail, as will President Obama. Soothing words are what Prime Minister Abe gave Congress yesterday. But here is the scorecard for U.S. trade with Japan: There hasn't been a single year of trade surplus for our country, not even balance. Rather, over the last 20 years, we have had $1,963,654,100 trillion lost dollars; U.S. dollars that have gone to Japan from us buying their products, but their markets remain closed to ours. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is not a trade deal. It should be debated as a treaty. It is a foreign policy arrangement that is part of the shift to Asia. As for the trade portion of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, it facilitates the movement of more U.S. jobs and corporations into Vietnam and other nations in the region. Labor costs there are chasing cheap labor a third of that of China now, and will ease the movement of those goods back into--guess where--our country again. We have seen it before. It is time for Congress to stand up for the workers and communities of the United States of America. Let us start building back our middle class rather than keep shipping it out every place but here.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. KAPTUR. I would just say to the offerer of the amendment from Texas that I come from a part of the country where the Nuclear Regulatory Commission did not do its job for a long time. I appreciate what you are attempting to do, and all I would say is, coming from a region where we have serious infractions that put human life at risk more than once, as you look at that budget and try to improve it, do not assume whatever levels of regulation existed in fact were appropriate because, in many cases, they were shortchanged and inadequate. As you move forward in this important arena, I would urge you to look at the places in the country where mistakes happened and figure out why and then direct resources to where they are most important in this very important technology.