Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. I move to strike the last word.

Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I'm glad we've had this discussion tonight. Others have heard it. I think it will help encourage administration cooperation, being the Representative who has the ports of Lake Erie in her district--Cleveland, Lorain, Sandusky, Toledo, and many points in between--I fully understand the challenge here. One of our budgetary challenges is we have to have a budget that allocates these dollars, and right now that hasn't come from your side of the aisle. So in order to use these dollars, it has to be incorporated in the budget resolution that comes to us. Our mark was too low in our bill in order to be able to move those dollars. So let's work on that with the Budget Committee, as well, so we get that allocation and it comes to our subcommittee. That's something that we can all work on on both sides of the aisle.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. I move to strike the last word.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. If the proposed amendment would take effect, the Corps would be prohibited from requiring a permit for discharges into waters of the United States from certain agricultural activities. The Clean Water Act already exempts certain agricultural activities from regulation unless those activities change the flow of navigable waters, then those agricultural activities, such as construction of stock ponds or irrigation ditches, construction of forest roads and reconstruction of recently damaged parts of levees, dikes, and dams, must be regulated. The Clean Water Act already exempts agriculture business from many of the regulations imposed on others. This amendment would take away the commonsense safeguards built into the Clean Water Act to prevent the negative impact of some agricultural activities, and we have all been witness to some of those. So I believe the Clean Water Act strikes the right balance in giving relief to agricultural businesses already and, therefore, urge defeat of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Congressman Kelly, your intention is not to preclude the administration from working with us on the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund if they have a creative idea that would help us?

Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Reclaiming my time, I hope the administration is hearing this and the Corps is hearing this and they work with us on a better allocation and not invading the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for other purposes. I would hate to deny the administration the right to think about this and to make recommendations to us. I don't think that it is the intent of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly) to prevent any oversight or activities by the administration to better manage the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. I don't think that is his intent. I think his intent is to ensure that these dollars are spent for harbor maintenance. But if, in fact, the administration has a good idea they want to throw in to help us with this, you wouldn't deny them the right to do that; am I correct? We need their cooperation in order to make this work. I yield to the gentleman.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I join Chairman Frelinghuysen and Representative Himes in emphasizing the importance of the Army Corps of Engineers projects. The Army Corps of Engineers has an important presence in the Great Lakes region, operating an electrified barrier in the Chicago Area Waterway System to keep the invasive Asian carp from entering the Great Lakes and devastating the fishing industry and ecosystem of one-fifth of the world's freshwater. So I appreciate the gentleman from Connecticut for acknowledging the importance of Corps projects beyond the eastern seaboard. I agree that the backlog of Army Corps projects is preventing the Corps from taking on new projects in a time-effective manner, which is particularly problematic as we approach hurricane season once again. I look forward to working with Mr. Himes in deciding how we can ensure new projects get the funding they need while also honoring those worthy projects that have been waiting for some time now.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. I rise this evening in opposition to my Buckeye State colleague, Congressman Chabot, and I'm somewhat perplexed by this amendment. I don't really understand why he's offering it. I have to oppose him. If we look at the Appalachian Regional Commission, it actually benefits Ohio. It benefits some of those river counties that have historically been left out of the economic mainstream. If you come to Ohio, it's rather interesting, because if you look at the State there are the big cities of Cleveland, which I'm privileged to represent a portion of, Columbus which is the State capitol, and Cincinnati, where the gentleman is from. There is a story that goes that those are the Big Three, and then there's the other part of the State that kind of winds its way from Toledo down toward Marietta. And the closer you get to Kentucky and Tennessee, the situation gets a little bit rugged. In fact, I had occasion to travel there this year for the sad occasion of our former colleague Congressman Charlie Wilson's funeral. And I remember how hard Charlie worked to try to represent his district. In just getting to where we had to go for the ceremonies, I was struck again by how that part of Ohio is so inaccessible, just to try to move through the territory and get to where we were going. When I finally got to the high school where the ceremonies were held, and as I walked into the high school, I saw the bricks that Charlie had used to help start a project to help promote education in his region because there was no institution of higher learning. They had to link up to institutions in other parts of the State. In just driving around and looking at that part of Ohio, the road system doesn't quite connect as it does from the other Big Three Cs. The other portion of the State doesn't work that way. So the Appalachian Regional Commission meets a very important need, even though it's not a part of the State that I live in. There are very hardworking people. Economic opportunities, especially in the hillier parts, is more difficult to achieve. The Appalachian Regional Commission spans several counties and several States, and it tries to bring hope and opportunity to these regions. A great part about our country is we're supposed to take care of one another, and the Appalachian Regional Commission provides a mechanism now going over several decades that has truly made a difference. But I can guarantee you that for the parts of Ohio that are included in its boundaries, the work is not finished. And with what's been happening in certain sectors of the economy, in many of these hollows and many of these nooks and crannies, life has gotten harder, not easier. I want to say that I don't know what motivates the gentleman's amendment this evening, but I really do think it would hurt Ohio, and it would hurt a lot of these counties, spanning into other States that are covered. And the other commissions that exist are not parts of America--take the Denali Commission or the Northern Border Regional Commission, the Delta Regional Authority--these are not areas that are easily lifted in terms of their economic performance, and they need help. I urge my colleagues to oppose the gentleman's amendment. I want to thank all those who worked with the Appalachian Regional Commission, particularly in my own State. I know it's not always easy, and we want to do what we can to support them. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Well, I would beg to disagree. Reclaiming my time, I'm glad the gentleman stated that, but I think that you will hear strongly from them that they, in fact, are paying back, and they have a good rate of repayment. I remember our former colleague, Norm Dicks, if I said anything against WAPA, boy, I'd be in big trouble because they do have a very good rate of repayment back. And, in fact, they have returned money consistently and paid back their original loan. So I think that they're free-floating now, and I think they have a very, very good record. So I would oppose the gentleman's amendment very strongly in support of our colleagues in the West and their need for power and modernizing their electricity grid. And I urge my colleagues to vote against the gentleman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. I move to strike the last word.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I am happy to yield to Congressman Kelly offering the amendment or Congressman Nolan, who spoke on the amendment, and to say that this amendment gives us an opportunity to talk about the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and the importance of all of our harbors, including those in the Great Lakes. I spoke earlier today, and I said I don't know how long it's going to take to narrow the channel any more. Some of the ports I represent, what has been happening is that with less money, the width has been narrowing. I said so maybe our ships will actually look like this some day, rather than having a bow that looks like this. There just simply aren't enough funds to dredge all of the ports that are necessary. And, in fact, there have been some harbors which have actually shut down. So this gives us an opportunity to talk about the necessity of a review of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and its future use and what we might do in order to get a better allocation to our accounts so that we can take care of all of these ports that are being pressed around the country. If the gentlemen have anything additional that they would like to put on the record at this point regarding the ports in the Great Lakes or elsewhere, I would be more than pleased to yield to them.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank you very much. Now, I don't live out there. I'm from a part of the country that doesn't have one of these, but most of America is covered by power marketing authorities. If you really look at California, if you look at the TVA, regions of the country that have these borrowing authorities, and the way they work is that the ratepayers then pay back, over time, the costs of that investment. We have to invest and modernize our grid. That part of the country is growing, and, frankly, they have been returning dollars at a fairly steady rate. I looked at those figures about a year ago. And with the increase in renewables in the West, there's also a need to alter the grid and its ability to accept new forms of power. That part of the country is growing. The population is just exploding out there. And so, therefore, we're going to have a greater use of power and more of a need to put it on to the system. So I don't see why the gentleman who comes from Louisiana--now, I know you've got a lot of oil drilling down there in the gulf and a lot of us have voted for that, but I don't really understand the purpose of the gentleman's amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Last year, wind energy was the largest source of new generating capacity in our country, comprising 42 percent of all new generating capacity. Overall, America's wind energy capacity grew by 28 percent. That's an incredible record, and it demonstrates that wind energy is an affordable, reliable source of power that produces no carbon or other air pollution. But the recent success of wind energy in our country doesn't mean we should stop investing in it. In fact, we need to do more, not less, to develop and deploy new wind energy technologies, and we're busy doing that along the Great Lakes. Wind energy will play an important role in the transition to a cleaner energy economy. According to the American Wind Energy Association, this year alone U.S. wind projects will avoid nearly 100 million metric tons of carbon dioxide being poured into the atmosphere--the equivalent of reducing power sector emissions by over 4 percent or taking more than 17 million cars off the road. In addition to cutting carbon pollution, investing in wind energy is a boon to our economy. In 2012, the industry supported more than 80,000 full-time equivalent jobs, including more than 25,000 manufacturing jobs at more than 550 facilities. As the global clean energy economy grows, the United States has a tremendous opportunity to attract more investment here and create even more manufacturing jobs, including in Kentucky and Ohio. But we are at risk of missing out on this opportunity. At a time when the global clean energy market is getting more competitive, the United States has started to lag behind. In 2012, China's level of clean energy financing surpassed our country's for the first time. Year after year, some House Republicans have pushed budgets and appropriation bills that would slash funding for clean energy and energy-efficiency programs. This appropriation bill is no exception, and Mr. Whitfield's amendment just takes it one step further. Eliminating all Department of Energy wind energy programs is exactly the wrong approach and one that will hurt our Nation's competitiveness in this growing market. It certainly isn't consistent with an all-of- the-above energy strategy. Some may argue it makes sense to cut government investment in wind energy since it is a more mature technology than some emerging technologies, but wind energy isn't operating on a level playing field. The United States currently provides enormous government subsidies and tax breaks to fossil fuels. In fact, the International Monetary Fund just issued a report finding that the United States provides more subsidies to fossil fuels than any other country in the world, even China. Our annual subsidies total over--get ready for this--one-half of a trillion dollars. We shouldn't cede the growing global clean energy market to China or make any of our other competitors happy. And let me just say this, as I know quite a bit about this and Ohio has been fast about wind energy. I represent the Saudi Arabia of wind in the Great Lakes, which is called Lake Erie. Lake Erie also happens to be the warmest of the lakes, so it's a bird haven. On the Mississippi Flyway, we have more fish, fauna, and birds than all the other Great Lakes combined. And with that Mississippi Flyway coming up, we have lots of eagles, we have lots of different types of birds. The cormorants are some that are problematic, but, nonetheless, we are really a bird haven. We've learned that the wind turbines don't cause us any trouble. We have to situate them sometimes 3 miles from shore. The biggest killer of birds nationwide is cats. So if you really want to look at where the problem is, maybe we need more cat control. But honestly, for the number of turbines that we've erected, what happens, especially when you have a set of turbines operating in the air, they create an updraft and the birds--they are pretty smart--sort of fly above the wind. They're amazing. They float on the pathway that the turbines generate. In addition to that, there are new technologies like strobe lights that are actually affixed to the turbines, and they keep birds away. It's almost like a silent radar in a way. So there are new technologies that are being developed to deal with that. We actually want birds. We want turbines. We want clean energy. We want all types of energy in our region. We haul coal out of Kentucky to many of our power plants. So we have an all-of-the-above strategy in our region, but we really welcome the wind opportunities. Cleveland, Ohio, and an investment group called LEEDCo is doing everything possible to move additional turbines onto the Great Lakes. So I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I ask my colleagues to vote against it. And I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I'm not quite sure why he's doing this, but, you know, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided $3.25 billion in borrowing authority to modernize the electricity grid. I believe your amendment focuses on WAPA, the Western Area Power marketing authority, solely; is that correct, sir?

Ms. KAPTUR. I'm happy to yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. Congressman Lynch, I think, has really thought through this proposal very well. His is a modest amendment. Actually, the bill that we are considering is $29,425,000 above the budget request of the administration, so he is merely conforming his amendment to the initial request. For the record, we anticipate that the Department will with this change spend approximately $420 million this year for fossil energy research and development. I agree with my esteemed colleague from New Jersey about the importance of natural gas, as Ohio is a State that has benefited deeply from that. A lot of that technology is going very well, and the companies are making significant profits. They can invest some of that in their own advanced development now. Then with the additional drilling for oil on public lands and so forth, we are producing more than we have in modern history over the last several years. So I think it's worthy to transfer some of these dollars to the Corps. We have over $60 billion worth of Corps projects that are backed up, and in terms of job creation, that just rings home across this country because those Corps dollars will be put to work in projects that have been backed up from coast to coast. I now yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman, and I, evidently, very strongly support his amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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