Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I just wanted to say to the author of the amendment that I said something to the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means today. I think he took it rather lightly, but I said, Here we are discussing our appropriation bills on the floor, and I said, We are trying to balance the budget. I said, But you know what? Your committee is sitting back; there are no revenues on the table, and mandatory spending isn't on the table, and you are trying to take it out of the hides of discretionary spending, which is such a small part of the entire Federal budget. You know what he did? He twirled around and kind of laughed me off and walked toward the back of the Chamber. I didn't think that was a very responsible answer. So I respect the gentleman being down here tonight, offering his amendment. I would encourage you to talk to the head of the Committee on Ways and Means because to try to get us to shrink even more than we have done in many of our accounts--and, by the way, eleven other appropriation bills coming after us that have been asked to do the same--really isn't fair to the American people. We need all hands on deck, all hands on deck. So I thank the gentleman for attempting to be responsible, but I really think you ought to look to some of the other committees that are sitting back while the burden is on our committee to make these decisions alone. That isn't right. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I oppose the gentleman's amendment, given it is a solution in search of a problem. Since their implementation, standards for ceiling fans and ceiling fan light kits have saved American consumers--are you ready?--$4.5 billion--billion--in energy costs, and cut greenhouse gas emissions by 22 metric tons. Nearly a decade ago--why do we have this system? Because three States--California, Maryland, and New York--created their own unique standards for ceiling fan test procedures and performance, and these varying requirements created difficulties for manufacturers marketing products across all 50 States. In response, the fan manufacturing industry asked the Federal Government for a national standard that would reduce unnecessary complexity. Since that time, the DOE, Department of Energy, has not even proposed a new rule on ceiling fans, so it is premature to react to what might be in a new rule. Even if a new rule is proposed, implementation is years away. The Department's analysis so far has shown that options exist for increasing ceiling fan efficiency that are cost-effective for manufacturers and the consumers. Any upgrades will enable consumers to save money by saving energy, also moving our country closer to its low-carbon future. Given the proposed rule has yet to be released, industry cannot anticipate how much their manufacturing costs might increase, whether their business model would be turned upside down, or whether the rule would result in energy growth. Industry has not substantiated any of their claims. The Department of Energy has conducted extensive consultation with industry stakeholders, including the companies themselves, and any potential indirect effects on air-conditioning units. The amendment ensures that consumers will be stuck with less efficient fans and higher energy costs. I can't see why we would want to do that. Let's help this industry. As I have stated, I object to the amendment as proposed and urge a ``no'' vote by my colleagues. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR

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

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Ms. KAPTUR. I want to thank Congresswoman Pingree of Maine for her efforts here this evening and for her dedication to renewable energy, including in the tidal arena. I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Mr. Abraham

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

Ms. KAPTUR. I rise in opposition the gentleman's amendment. It doesn't take a mental giant to see that floods are among the most costly and frequent of all nature's hazards. Between 1980 and 2013, the United States suffered more than $260 billion worth of flood-related damages. Flooding accounts for approximately 85 percent of all disaster declarations in the country. And on average, more people die annually from flooding than any other natural disaster. I can tell you that even in the Midwest, which isn't one of the coastal communities, we have more significant storms of late and more rainfall and more flooding to deal with. The costs borne by the Federal taxpayer by flooding exceed any other natural hazard. Losses caused by flooding impact our economic prosperity, public health and safety, and our national security by straining disaster response resources and increasing the frequency and cost of disaster relief. When you look at the cost of what FEMA has to spend to try to clean up everything from basements to neighborhoods, oh, my goodness. The millions and millions of dollars that go out, the billions of dollars that go out the door because of these disasters around the country related to flooding is huge. Flooding risks are anticipated to increase over time due to the continued occupation of flood-prone areas, the impacts of climate change, and other threats. That damage can be particularly severe to our Nation's infrastructure, including our buildings, roads, ports, industrial facilities, and even our coastal military installations. I actually have traveled to Louisiana, and my heart goes out to the people of New Orleans and all of the surrounding areas for what they suffered. But I can tell you, I was shocked to see that there were decisions made for land planning to absolutely rebuild where all the damage had occurred. I even made suggestions in the Ninth Ward inside New Orleans. I said: Why don't you leave that open for agriculture, so that when you get another big threat from the ocean, you won't harm as many people? It was as though no one wanted to listen. Well, God bless everyone, because nature we can't control. She does what she wants. Federal agencies will be given the flexibility to select the best approach for establishing the flood elevation and hazard area they use in siting, design, and construction: utilizing the best available actionable data and methods that integrate current and future changes in flooding based on science and experience; 2 or 3 feet of elevation, depending on the criticality of the building itself, above the 100- year, or 1 percent, annual chance flood elevation; or a 500-year, or 0.2 percent, annual chance flood elevation. The new flood standard will help reduce the risk and costs and, frankly, loss of life of future flood disasters by providing a margin of safety so that federally funded structures, facilities, and infrastructure last as long as intended. Why should we ask people who are living responsibly with the land and the forces of nature to pay for those who want to live irresponsibly with those same forces? It seems to me that one of the most cost-effective things we can do is to be sensible about our land planning for the future, so that we avoid the harm to human life and our built environment. We are more intelligent, we hope, than we were a century ago. We have a lot more data. We have a lot more experience, and it should influence our decisions from now into the future. I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to join me. Let's be responsible in this new century and minimize the harm, both to human life as well as taxpayers' pocketbooks. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express the opinion, though I will not oppose the amendment, because there are no funds in the bill for dam removal, and I wanted to just clarify that for the Record, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Blackburn amendment because it would prevent the Department of Energy from issuing long-needed efficiency standards for residential furnaces. In the end, that will only hurt consumers and needlessly waste energy. The current standards, which are essentially 25 years old, leave consumers with higher utility bills than are necessary. Further delays to the furnace rule will allow this situation to continue indefinitely. The new DOE standard would cut energy waste, saving consumers more than $600 over the lifetime of their furnaces. On a national level, that will work out to savings between $4 billion to $19 billion. The proposed DOE standard does not apply to furnaces that are already in use. It grandfathers them or it doesn't apply to repairs that can be made to existing furnaces. It is also worth mentioning that the Blackburn amendment would be especially negative for low-income households. Many low-income people who are renters do not get to choose the furnaces that heat their homes. Property owners will generally choose the lowest cost furnace even if that furnace will result in higher energy bills. In the end, it is the low-income renters who are stuck with the gas bills from the inefficient furnace. The DOE standard would help ensure all Americans can benefit from lower energy bills thanks to increased efficiency. Finally, the proposed rule would save more natural gas than other rules to date and would, therefore, deliver large, cumulative greenhouse gas emission reductions at a cost savings to everyone. The Blackburn amendment would throw away that opportunity. It is true that there are still some things to be worked out with the regulation, and we should move toward that end, but what the industry needs and what the consumers need is certainty going forward, so everyone can plan to build and install the latest and most efficient technology. We should let the Department of Energy do its job. Let's not waste time; let's not waste energy, and let's not waste money and consumer savings that will result. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Blackburn amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this amendment. The way you balance budgets is to have a robust economy, where everybody is helping to pull the ship forward. That isn't the case right now. What we have dug out since 2008 was the largest recession since the Great Depression. America's chief strategic vulnerability throughout this period of time--for actually over a quarter century now--and our largest area of economic loss is energy. It rests in energy. Since 2003, just since 2003, our country has spent $2.3 trillion importing foreign petroleum. That is just petroleum. That is not a country that is self-reliant. That is a country that deeply needs energy security here at home. The result of this amendment will be less investment in the sector most critical to helping us right this hole that we have dug for ourselves. Can you imagine if that $2.3 trillion had been spent in this country, the number of jobs we would have, the greater amount of income and revenue we would have flowing into people's pockets and also into the public sector where we have to pay the bills? In addition to moving us backwards on the energy front, this amendment will be less investment in water resources, and we have $62 billion worth of Army Corps projects alone that have sat on the shelf. We have no new starts in this bill. That is not a country on the grow. That is a country in retrenchment. So this amendment, it isn't a 50 percent cut. It is meant to send a signal. I say to the gentlelady, as I said to the chair of the Ways and Means Committee today who turned away from me and walked to the back of the Chamber, you know, it is pretty hard to balance a budget when not everybody is at work, their wages have been cut, the middle class has shrunk, but then you don't put revenues on the table. Some of those lucrative operations, these transnational corporations have operating offshore aren't bringing their money home. They are holding it over there. Revenues need to be on the table and mandatory spending has to be on the table. He walked away from me, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. It was a rather interesting conversation. The Appropriations Committee can't do this alone, and we certainly shouldn't do it in sectors where America truly is hurting. At a time when unemployed Americans are losing jobless benefits and many young families struggle just to survive, we should be creating jobs and securing the American Dream, starting with a self-reliant energy future. This bill underfunds that. The chairman has spoken eloquently to that. And it harms American economic growth and energy growth and energy security, and it damages those portions of our budget that are critical to our national security: vital weapons programs, our Naval research reactor research, and nonproliferation funding. We believe our bill builds America forward to achieve progress for our country again and not retrenchment. So I oppose the gentlelady's amendment. I think she has the right spirit, but I think she is looking in the wrong place in terms of what we face as a country. I oppose her amendment. I yield back my the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this McClintock amendment because it sounds like a solution in search of a problem. This amendment seeks to undermine the Endangered Species Act by restricting the Bureau of Reclamation from expending funds on water for the purpose of managing endangered fish populations. While I oppose the spirit of the amendment, I must also object to it because it does absolutely nothing. The Bureau of Reclamation does not purchase water for the purpose of temperature management. The Bureau of Reclamation does not purchase water now, and they have no plans to do it in fiscal year 2016. In fact, due to water scarcity, the price of water is too high. The extreme drought in the West presents significant management challenges, and Bureau of Reclamation biologists should have every tool possible to make decisions and provide a safety net for species nearing extinction. Instead of attempting to undermine the judgment of those professionals, we should be working on solutions to grow the water supply in California. That involves water reuse; increased efficiencies, which have already started; conservation; storm water capture; agricultural practices. The dry West faces very difficult choices, and we want to walk alongside them but with solutions that make sense and that are capable of being implemented. I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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 but, believe me, with sympathy toward what the people of the West are facing. I just hope that we can get through this situation reasonably and seamlessly somehow. I oppose the amendment because it would lock in a specific operating regime, regardless of facts on the ground. In 2014, the Bureau of Reclamation made the decision not to release water above the minimum requirement, clearly showing they are realistic and willing to change to meet the circumstances at hand. I hope the gentleman agrees. Reclamation monitored temperatures and fish health to balance risks. Then last September, the Bureau of Reclamation did release flows because of a deadly detection of a parasite impacting salmon. Yet we must ensure that the massive fish kill of 2002 doesn't happen again. This balancing act is really difficult, but we cannot sacrifice the environment either. We must find a way to balance the needs of people and the environment in the West. Further, in the Klamath Basin, we must meet our obligations to the tribes who have relied on the river. None of this will be easy. We should not be locking in an operating regime that ignores science and does not allow us to adapt to changing circumstances. On this basis, I oppose the gentleman's amendment and honestly hope, as a country, we can do what is necessary to help the West. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a very, very hard-working and passionate member of our Appropriations Committee.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Ms. KAPTUR. We will have more coal-fired utilities shut down in Ohio than almost any other State, so I identify with what the gentleman is saying. Frankly, I think that we, as a country, have to be much more responsive to our miners and to coal country USA. I represent the largest coal shipping port on the Great Lakes. I fully appreciate what you are saying. I supported that industry from the day I got here. I have supported research into the clean coal program and continue to do so. I just want you to know that. We don't disagree on harming any sector. We need them all.

Ms. KAPTUR. I have no further requests for time, so I yield back the balance of my time in the interests of moving forward with the bill.