Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentlelady's amendment, and I do so for several reasons. First of all, the renewable energy accounts, where the funds are taken from, have already been reduced by $113 million from the prior fiscal year. Frankly, those accounts are part of our future--of our future energy security for the country and, as I said in my opening statement, of the preservation of our liberty. With over 40 percent of our energy resources being imported, there is no higher priority than for us to diversify our energy portfolio and to reclaim our own economic and energy security. Further reduction in those accounts will have a detrimental impact not just in Montana, but across this country. In addition, the amendment, as I understand it, reduces Departmental administration by $6 million. Given my colleague's frustration with the Department's pace on many activities, including on the approval of our LNG export efforts, this seems to be a case of, really, making it much more difficult for the Department to do its job. Let me put on the record again that, just since 2003, in the last decade, our country has spent $2.3 trillion on importing foreign petroleum. This is a vast shift of wealth, and thousands upon thousands--literally millions of jobs--are evaporating from our country. Bloomberg New Energy Finance reports for 2030 that the market outlook estimates that renewables will command over 60 percent of the $7.7 trillion of power investment that is going to be made someplace. When we think about our country's future, we must be vigilant, and we must be smart. We must be engaged in those markets because, if we aren't, we see what China is doing and we see what Russia is doing. We have to pay attention. We can't rob Peter to try to pay Paul. Any water project, whether it is in Montana or whether it is in Ohio, is largely a public project, and you have to make money in the market to pay for it. Reasserting ourselves and becoming leaders in energy, rather than importers of energy, is where America needs to head. I think this takes us in the wrong direction. We should be leading investment in these technologies, not further eroding their capacity for our country, because other countries will displace us, and they are doing so. Now, in terms of rural water projects in the Bureau of Reclamation, those water projects already will receive $21 million above the administration's request, so it is not like our subcommittee isn't doing its job. Frankly, our part of America gets much less attention than the West does, in terms of rural water investment. We have a 50-50 match in our part of the country. We don't have anything like the Bureau of Reclamation, and we have to compete in the Midwest for those precious dollars. We don't have enough, but we manage to move along as best we can. I think that we have done what we can in our bill for rural water, and I really would take objection to the gentlelady's efforts to try to further cripple those renewable energy accounts that are going to help to create America's new future and to lead us toward energy independence and toward a reassumption of our liberties. I would hope that she would find another way to achieve her objectives. I think I must also offer the comment that, as we look toward the West and its water needs, because of what is happening in the environment, we may be at a point in America's history at which we have to put our dollars where it makes the most sense, and if development is occurring in areas that are already water short or that are becoming desert--where the desert is growing and where literally nature can't provide what it did, maybe, 100 years ago--I think we have to manage the public dollars more wisely. I oppose the gentlelady's amendment. I hope that we can find a different way to meet her genuine concerns. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. KAPTUR. So I understand, where are you taking the $15 million from?

Ms. KAPTUR. Could I offer the opinion that, if the gentleman found different offsets, this Member, as an Ohioan, would be very interested in supporting the workers in Portsmouth and in that region of Ohio which are so devastated. At the moment, I can't do that because I don't agree with the offsets, but I wanted to place the opinion on the Record. And I thank the gentleman very much for his efforts on behalf of the State of Ohio and that region of Ohio.

Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. KAPTUR. I wanted to make a point on this particular Portsmouth facility and the Department of Energy's seeming inability to help communities transition. Whether it is coal-fired utilities and the issues that coal country faces in general or here you have a facility that is important in the Nation's defense looking back and looking forward, and so many times it just seems that when technologies change, when situations change, the local people who have invested their lives just get spit out. I just wanted to put that statement on the Record, because I know the Department of Energy is listening today, and we have the ability in this country to transition communities. Maybe in places like Portsmouth we should be doing more on renewables, because America is going to need renewables; and maybe there is a way the Department of Energy could be more creative, whether it is natural gas, whether it is storage of certain material and so forth. But to put all those people out of work, without a plan, without a transition plan, it is like, you know, the private sector giving them the pink slip at Christmas. That is when they always give them the pink slips, right before Christmas. It is so heartless. Here you have a community that is going to be heavily affected. So I just wanted to say on the Record, Mr. Chairman of the full committee, that I just feel that the Department has been a bit laggard, and I would hope that they could work with us in a more constructive way. I understand what the gentleman is trying to do, and he is very well-intentioned as he comes to the floor today. I just wish I could do more to convince the Department to help him.

Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman very much for allowing me this privilege. I just wanted to rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment and to say that one of the reasons we have a budget deficit is because we have an energy deficit. We have had an energy deficit for over a quarter century--well over three decades now--and every year, the average family in our country puts out over $2,800 now, just for gasoline for their automobiles. There were those who said we shouldn't incentivize the ethanol industry. Now, about 10 percent of every tank full of gasoline has ethanol in it, and that has reduced our imports. If you look at the hemorrhage from this country of over $10 trillion over the next quarter century with oil being $100 a barrel and you look at what is happening to the middle class in our country because we aren't energy independent, we had better be serious about changing the composition of energy production in this country because it is part of the major problem we face in lack of robust economic growth. You can't import economic growth; you have to produce economic growth. One of the major ways we can produce economic growth in this country is to invent a future different from the past, so I completely oppose the gentleman's amendment because you are going to increase the Federal deficit because economic growth will not increase at the level that it should be. It has been slowly creeping forward with the weight of two wars on our backs over the last decade or so, but you can't kill the future. In Alabama especially, you have that major Huntsville operation with all those NASA facilities and all those subcontractors, and there are parts of Alabama that are doing very well as a result of Federal investment, but don't hurt the rest of the country on the energy front because you have some perspective about why we might have a deficit. We have a deficit because we are not inventing the future fast enough, and we are importing too much of what we should be making here at home. So I appreciate the courtesy in allowing me to place this on the Record. We can't kill renewable energy. We can't kill the future. We have got to be able to invent it and to cut off these imports and to begin to produce our way forward again in this country. I view it as our chief strategic vulnerability. So I appreciate the gentleman wants to do something good in terms of reducing the deficit. The best thing we can do is to invent our way forward and create new energy sources for this country, including the renewables. Don't kill the future. Oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I would respectfully yield the time that has been yielded to me back to the gentleman.

Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. It is quite astounding that somebody from the State of California--a State that exists because of Federal investments through the entirety of its existence--would even come forward with an amendment like this. For someone from Ohio, it is very unusual to see this. Let me just say that, in opposing this amendment, I wish to offer the perspective that America can't live in the past, that, in fact, when one looks at what we are enduring because of our dependence on energy that is imported, there is no greater imperative than for us to unhook from imports. As I look at the gentleman's amendment, it is actually very destructive. You actually destroy our future. America is not innovating at the level that we should in renewables. We have a burgeoning solar industry, but China has captured it. She steals the patents. She steals the innovation, and we don't do much about it. You take money from fossil programs. I don't have all of the scientific answers, but I know that a piece of our future relies on access that we have here in the ground. The energy portfolio and the research portfolio of the Department of Energy is critical. The reason we have the horizontal drilling technologies--those weren't developed outside by some humanitarian group. They were developed by the American people's investment in drilling technologies, which have now given us a gas boom that will help us transition to a new energy future because the gas won't last forever, but at least we have the possibility of becoming independent here at home again. I find the gentleman's amendment very backward-looking; and I would say, for someone from the State of California, if you look at the Bureau of Reclamation, if you look at all of the benefits that have accrued to the State of California and your own presence inside this 50-State Union, it is because of the investment in energy and water that you even exist. So for you to come forward--and it may be a well-intentioned amendment, but to try to destroy the future of innovation through your amendment in the primary arena of imports--imported petroleum, which we have to unhook from and become energy independent--to me, is just astounding. We live in very different universes--that is clear through your amendment--but there is no greater strategic imperative than for this country to become energy independent here at home. Our liberty depends on it. If you go back over the last 25 years and look at where our soldiers have died, it is very clear we are not independent. I oppose the gentleman's amendment. I think it is backward looking. I think that it fails to move America into a new energy future. I oppose this amendment with full gusto.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's proposal.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman stood up earlier this afternoon and was trying to cut from really essential accounts. And I accept his desire to try to balance the budget. When his party shut down the government and threw the wrench of shutdown into every program that the Nation depends upon, it created quite a bit of chaos around here and around the country. Money was wasted on furloughs. The military was trying to decide how they were going to rotate different operations and so forth. It was a terrible period that we lived through. And we are still taking and gluing our programs back together after all of that. Some of the work of the authorizing committees, under your leadership, were not able to clear their bills on time. So the gentleman's solution is to say, well, you know, none of that happened. So I am just going to take this opportunity to go after the Energy and Water bill and kind of take this and this and this and propose this amendment. And I think that the gentleman's goal of fiscal responsibility is one that I share, but this isn't the way to do it. This isn't the way to kind of pick some programs, and we don't even know what impact it will have across the country. I would rather have a much more thoughtful presentation that would come before us. What programs is he talking about? The same ones this afternoon he was trying to cut, the renewable energy program--he is talking about cutting nuclear and fossil energy. He really doesn't like the Department of Energy. I bet, if you ask the gentleman, he doesn't even want the Department of Energy to exist for our country. If you look around the world, I am probably not wrong on that bet, so this is just another way to try to cause havoc over at the Department of Energy. As I have said earlier today, I view what is happening in that Department as one of the most important strategic sets of investments that this country has to make. Why create more havoc over there? We have had difficulties in trying to balance our energy accounts over the years. Imported petroleum still constitutes 40 percent of what Americans are paying for. The average family, every year, $2,800 comes out of their pocket for gasoline. Mr. Chairman, we need to modernize our fleet. There is a lot of natural gas conversions going on in the country for our truck fleets. We need not throw a wrench into that. We need to hasten it, to move America to a new day. We need a modernized grid, whatever that is going to look like. We need to be able to dispose of our nuclear waste. We need to make sure that our energy policy plays on all keys, not just a few. I don't think this is a time to create more havoc, following on the havoc that has been created in the past, which I am sure the gentleman supported, and to pick on the Department of Energy--we need a much more coherent strategy in order to balance our budget, and the most important strategy we can have is to put people back to work and, through innovation in this country and the balancing of our trade deficit, begin to reinvest those dollars back here at home. Mr. Chairman, I mentioned earlier today that we have about, oh, I think $34 billion in this entire bill. Our energy trade deficit with the world this year is a little over $210 billion. Maybe it is a little higher than that. The deficit--the hole this year alone is eight times bigger than our bill. So if you look at what you are trying to do here, it is counterproductive, and we need to be looking at modernizing our energy system here in this country, not picking it apart, and not creating more havoc at the Department, but actually investing in America's future. So I ask my colleagues to oppose the gentleman's amendment, and let's get on with the regular order here. Let's get this bill cleared. Let's go to conference with the Senate and do for America what she needs, and that is restoring her energy security in order that our liberty not be threatened in this generation and the future.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to align my remarks with yours, and that is, though I would oppose the gentleman's amendment at this point, the potential of hydropower is enormous, both low-power hydro--and the more robust parts of the country, I am sure Idaho has big falls and Pennsylvania, in many places, but the low-power hydro that is more characteristic of the Great Lakes region, for example, offers enormous potential, and there are new inventions to be had in capturing the power of water, even as it moves in streams that flow just at grade. Mr. Chairman, we need to allow this conversation to influence the Department of Energy, so that there is more attention given to hydro and to the development of new technologies, water dropping--being elevated and then being dropped in different parts of the country--as well as existing watersheds being used more effectively. We need a lot more work. I would say to the gentleman that I bet we could get more than 15 percent, if we really put our minds to it, so I wanted to offer general support of the idea. Even though we can't support your amendment today, let's hope in the future we can find a way to do a better job with hydropower. I thank the chairman for yielding.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), a capable and engaged Member of this House.

Ms. KAPTUR. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this amendment regarding opportunities for small businesses on behalf of our able and dedicated colleague from Texas, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, who had to return to Texas on very important official business this evening, and she is airbound, I believe, at this point. I am honored to offer it on her behalf. Essentially, the amendment increases funding for the Department of Energy's Office of Economic Impact and Diversity by a minimal amount of $500,000 offset by a reduction of like amount in funding for the Energy Information Administration. This amendment increases funding for the Department's Office of Minority Impact, which should be used to enhance the Department's engagement with minority programs and other related activities. The Office of Economic Impact and Diversity is really a credit to Secretary of Energy Moniz's holistic view of diversity, which recognizes that participation via equal access is critical to our commitment to ensuring that the Department works for all Americans, particularly to improve the lives of low-income and minority communities, as well as our environment at large. Twenty years ago, on February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898, directing Federal agencies to identify and address the disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-income populations. We need to highlight the Office of Economic Impact and Diversity in the Office of Economic Impact and Diversity because STEM education-- science, technology, engineering, and math education--has become a real calling card. The Department of Energy seeks to provide equal access in these opportunities for underrepresented groups in STEM, including minorities, Native Americans, and women. Mr. Chairman, women and minorities make up 70 percent of college students but only 45 percent of undergraduates that are STEM degree holders. That is really quite a startling statistic. The women and minorities comprise 70 percent of college students. Only 45 percent of them that are undergraduates are STEM degree holders. That is almost a 2-to-1 ratio. This large pool of untapped talent is a great potential source of STEM professionals. As the Nation's demographics are shifting and now most children under the age of 1 are minorities, it is critical that we take and close the gap in the number of minorities who seek STEM opportunities. I applaud the Secretary's commitment, which will increase the Nation's economic competitiveness and enable more of our people to realize their full potential and America's full potential. Mr. Chairman, there are still a great many scientific riddles left to be solved, and perhaps one of these days a minority engineer or biologist will come up with the solutions. The larger point is that we need to make more STEM educators and more minorities to qualify for them and to make this country fully representative. The funding provided by this amendment will help ensure that members of underrepresented communities are not placed at a disadvantage when it comes to environmental sustainability, preservation, and health. Through education about the importance of environmental sustainability, we can promote a broader understanding of science and how citizens can improve their surroundings. In community education efforts, working with teachers and students, they can also learn about radiation, radioactive waste management, and other related subjects. In fact, many of the communities that these individuals live in are places where environmental cleanup is so desperately needed based on the legacy costs of our nuclear programs, for example. The Department of Energy places interns and volunteers from minority institutions into Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs. The Department of Energy also works to increase low-income and minority access to STEM fields and help students attain graduate degrees, as well as find employment. The other offices within the Office of Economic Impact and Diversity are the Minority Business and Economic Development, the Minority Education and Community Development, Civil Rights Diversity and Inclusion, and the Council on Women and Girls and Minority Banks. With the continuation of this kind of funding, we can increase diversity, provide clean energy options to our most underserved community, and help improve their environments, which will yield better health outcomes and greater public awareness. Most importantly, businesses will have more consumers with whom they may engage in related commercial activities. We must help our low-income and minority communities and ensure equity for those who are the most vulnerable in our country. I ask our colleagues to join me in support of the Kaptur amendment, by way of Sheila Jackson Lee's amendment, for the Office of Economic Impact and Diversity program. I ask for the support of my colleagues, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman and Members, I am pleased to offer this amendment regarding additional resources for environmental justice on behalf of our esteemed colleague, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, who had to return to Texas this evening on very important official business. The amendment is on page 26 of the 60-page bill, and it reprograms funding for the Department of Energy's departmental administration to increase support for environmental justice program activities by $1 million, offset by a reduction of like amount in funding for departmental corporate information technology programs. The amendment increases funding for the Department, and the program is an essential tool in the Department's effort to improve the lives of low-income and minority communities, as well as the environment at large. Twenty years ago, when President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898 that directed Federal agencies to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-income populations, America walked toward a new horizon, and we began to understand that a healthy environment sustains a productive and healthy community which fosters personal and economic growth. Maintaining funds for environmental justice that go to Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Minority Serving Institutions, Tribal Colleges, and other organizations is imperative to protecting sustainability and growth of the community and environment. The funding of these programs is vital to ensuring that minority groups are not placed at a disadvantage when it comes to the environment and the continued preservation of their homes. It is amazing to go through some of these communities and neighborhoods across our country and to look at issues like lead-based paint or, importantly, dumps from prior decades that have been covered over but are leaching everything from low-level radioactive waste to toxic pollutants that have been buried there for years and people are living right next door, sometimes on top of these situations. It is unbelievable. In Ohio, it is amazing how many toxic sites have to be cleaned up, and it is not the only place. If you look at maps across our country of unattended environmental cleanups, it is staggering, and it is important to see who lives on top of or next door to these places. Through education about the importance of environmental sustainability, we can promote a broader understanding of science and how citizens can improve their own surroundings. America has to behave differently in 2014 than we did in 1900 or 1950 or 1980. Funds that would be awarded to this important cause would increase youth involvement in STEM fields and also promote clean energy, weatherization, cleanup, and asset revitalization. These improvements would provide protections to our most vulnerable groups. This program provides better access to technology for underserved communities and, together, the Departments of Energy and Agriculture have distributed over 5,000 computers to many of these low-income populations. The Community Leaders Institute is another vital component of the environmental justice program. It ensures those in leadership positions understand what is happening in their communities and can, therefore, make informed decisions. These programs have been expanded to better serve Native Americans and Alaska Natives, creating a prime example of how various other minority groups can be assisted as well. Through community education efforts, teachers and students have also benefited by learning about radiation, radioactive waste management, and other related subjects. The Department of Energy places interns and volunteers from minority institutions into energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, and the Department also works to increase low-income and minority access to STEM fields and help students attain graduate degrees, as well as find employment. Since 2002, the tribal energy program has also funded 175 energy projects, amounting to over $41.8 million in order to help tribes invest in renewable sources of energy. With the continuation of this kind of funding, we can provide clean energy options to our most underserved communities and help improve their environments, yielding better health outcomes and greater public awareness. In fiscal year 2013, the environmental justice program was not funded. For fiscal year 2014, we ask that money be appropriated for the continuation of this vital initiative. We must help our low-income and minority communities, and ensure equality for those who are the most vulnerable. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the Kaptur amendment, which actually is the Jackson Lee amendment, to improve the environmental justice program. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the gentleman's amendment. It simply reduces the long-range standoff missile study to the President's request. Given the National Nuclear Security Administration's dismal record on both life extension projects and construction projects, cost overruns like we have never seen before, I think it is wise to take a considered approach to any new system and any new study. So I support the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort. Support the Quigley amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?