Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?

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

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. 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. 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. I move to strike the last word.

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. 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. Madam Chair, I rise to oppose the amendment and to stress the importance of ocean policy. We already see acidification, low dissolved oxygen, harmful algae blooms, and dead zones in the Gulf, the Chesapeake Bay, Puget Sound, and throughout our Nation's coastal waterways. The National Ocean Policy would help us better address the cumulative threats to our aquatic ecosystems from overfishing, coastal development, storm water runoff, carbon emissions, and pollutants in our waterways. The implementation of the National Ocean Policy will help to protect, maintain, and restore our ocean and coastal ecosystems, systems which provide important jobs, food, recreation, and which serve as the foundation for a substantial part of our Nation's economy. Only healthy, functioning, and resilient marine and freshwater ecosystems can support the fisheries we all depend upon so heavily. There are some reports that show that over half of the fish in the oceans have been fished out. If you go to any supermarket, you're going to find on the shelves--the fish that are there--strange names you've never even heard of before because so many of the varieties that were plentiful are simply fished out forever. The core approach of the National Ocean Policy is to improve stewardship of our ocean's coasts, islands, and Great Lakes by directing government agencies with differing mandates to coordinate and work better together. The National Ocean Policy creates no new authorities. It's about increased coordination among existing agencies, the sort of effort that should be taking place on a Federal level in order to reduce inefficiency, waste, and redundancy between agencies. This is an issue of bringing people together so that all of the ocean's users, including recreational and commercial fishermen, boaters, industries, scientists, and the public can better plan for, manage, harmonize, and sustain uses of oceans and coastal resources. When you think about it, we now have 310 million people in our country. We look at the global populations in the billions. With the rate of population increase rising, more and more fishing going on--and how many of us come from regions where we see that fisheries have shut down? And that in fact what used to exist in Massachusetts, exists no more. That there are places on the West Coast where the fisheries that had been there are shut down. That's because there's so much draw on that life source in the ocean that we have to pay attention as a world how we are going to feed the generations of the future. This is not a casual engagement. This is downright serious business. I would say that the gentleman's amendment is not forward-looking. I don't know what he has in mind here. But the better we understand what is going on and what Congressman Claude Pepper used to call Planet Ocean, where 70 percent of our Earth is actually water, much of it impinged now by pollutants and so forth. We have a responsibility to the globe. This is not simple. Prior generations haven't had to think this way, but we have to think this way because there are many more draws on these resources. Look at the problems we've had with some countries going out and doing the fishing and just taking fish to one country and not allowing other fishermen to have equal access, even in the Great Lakes that I represent. It's amazing. Every single year, the number of fish you're allowed to catch goes down, because we've both got more fisherman, because the population is increasing, but there are fewer fish to draw from those lakes. And there are substantial threats in the form of invasive species. So the gentleman and I are on different sides of this. I think it's important to understand the oceans and to coordinate among our agencies to put the best intelligence forward because the globe is changing and we have to be smart enough to deal with those ecosystem changes. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. I rise in opposition to the gentlelady's amendment and wish to point out to our colleagues that this amendment will prohibit any funds made available by the act from being used by the Department of Energy to finalize, implement, or enforce the proposed rule entitled, ``Standards, Ceiling Fans and Ceiling Fan Light Kits'' and identified by regulation identification number 1904-AC87. The Department of Energy is initiating the rulemaking and data collection process to consider amending the energy conservation standards for ceiling fans and ceiling fan light kits. Making ceiling fans more efficient would potentially reduce carbon output by 22 million metric tons. This amendment would erode the Department of Energy's effort to curb carbon emissions and save consumers money on their electric bills. The Department estimates that the higher standards for ceiling fans will result in $4.3 billion in undiscounted energy bill savings through 2030. Also, I would be remiss if I did not point out that these amendments seek to undercut the administration's rulemaking authority given to it by Congress. Speaker after speaker on the other side of the aisle criticized this administration for not undertaking rulemaking on other issues and instead issuing guidance. Now we have rulemaking that allows for public comment, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are still not satisfied. The Department is following its responsibility under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to regulate ceiling fan energy usage. And you know what? It's not a bad idea. We actually own ceiling fans in our family. What's interesting about them is, if you have two or three speeds on them, the first speed, which is supposed to be the low speed, is more than we want, and it's very hard to get these fans demonstrated in the showroom sometimes. If you want to be a responsible consumer, I think it would be really helpful to the buying public to have standards, to be able to have labeling, to know what you're buying. This is an important market. I would guess it's one that's growing in our economy. But I think it's really important to have this kind of effort. The industry will be able to comment. That's what rulemaking is all about. We can work with consumers. Consumers like us can write in. We can make our comments. Overall, we get a better product and we get one that's more energy efficient. I know that there's a Hunter Fan Company located in Memphis, Tennessee, so I imagine the gentlelady may be speaking on their behalf. That's okay. That's what we're all here for. But the consumers out there also have a right to try to buy the most energy-efficient product. The fan that we bought, the light is too bright in the ceiling. And I don't know if you've ever tried to install one of those things. It's not so easy to get that off and to put the different bulbs in and all. As I think it's an industry that is growing and improving, I would think they could use a little bit of help. This amendment is anti-consumer. I think it should be defeated, but I admire the gentlelady for bringing it to the floor and the gentleman who supported her. I think working together we can all make it a little bit better for the environment, for consumers, and for the company. They will sell more fans, and people will have more confidence in their product. 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.

Ms. KAPTUR. I rise in opposition to these very able gentlemen's amendment. While I have some sympathy for this issue--and it's not a new one to this bill--I believe that more consistency should be brought to the way we evaluate wetland impacts, not less, as this amendment would ensure. The Charleston Method has been utilized for over two decades in various Corps districts, and it is a quick and inexpensive and consistent methodology for use by the regulated public and the Corps. In 2006 and 2007, the New Orleans district worked with its Federal and State partners to modify the Charleston Method so that it better reflected the unique conditions found in south Louisiana, resulting in the Modified Charleston Method that our colleagues have suggested. The use of this method is a longstanding one in many Corps districts. Many regulatory customers use the tool to assess their potential mitigation requirements for their impacts as well as credits required at mitigation banks. This transparency in Corps mitigation requirements has helped the applicant prepare a complete application package and determine mitigation costs up front--importantly, costs up front--costs often that are borne by the Federal taxpayer. The suspension of the use of the Charleston Method in Corps districts would require that any pending permit application, under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and pending mitigation banks, would need to be reevaluated using a different assessment tool or methodology, or, in the absence of such a methodology, use the best professional judgment to determine appropriate mitigation requirements for impacts and for available credits in mitigation banks. All approved mitigation banks with available credits that were determined by the process would be temporarily closed until a new methodology could be developed and the banks' credits converted to the credit system of the new methodology. These banks were established utilizing the credit system of the Charleston Method, and until a similar credit system can be determined for proposed impact sites, it would not be possible to correlate the new requirements in the old credit system. So we are into the weeds on this one, and we know that the difficulty at the edges--where the water meets the land, where we have very severe coastal conditions that occur as a result of weather changes and so forth--do require us to be more land planning conscious. I've seen the work that the Corps has done in Louisiana, and I appreciate the gentlemen's concern about their home State. I think to try to change this in this bill is probably not wise policy, and we know the costs of these damaged areas to the taxpayers of the United States. With coastal storms being what they are, we anticipate greater coastal activity, and I think that wiser planning is better than moving to a process that, I think, is less rigorous. So, on those bases, I oppose the gentlemen's amendment, but I do thank them very much for their deep service to their State, to their region, which has been so impacted by changes in our environment. 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.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the very distinguished Member's amendment--Dr. Burgess--and simply say that his amendment would prohibit the Department of Energy from promulgating light bulb efficiency standards. It is a common misunderstanding that there is some type of ban on the incandescent light bulb that effectively requires people to have the limited choice of only a compact fluorescent bulb. This is simply not true. Regulations require only that bulbs be more efficient. So this debate really isn't about choice--or energy efficiency for that matter. It's about endangering American jobs, specifically American manufacturing jobs. Given that American manufacturers have committed to following the law regardless of whether or not it is enforced, the only benefit of this ill-informed rider is to allow foreign manufacturers who may not feel a similar obligation to import noncompliant light bulbs that will not only harm the investments made by U.S. companies, but place at risk the U.S. manufacturing jobs associated with making compliant bulbs. Further, it is the equivalent of a $100 tax on every American family--that's $16 billion across our Nation--through increased energy costs. The performance standards for light bulbs were established in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. At that time, the bill enjoyed strong bipartisan support of both Republicans and Democrats. Ninety-five House Republicans voted for final passage, and the bill was signed into law by President Bush. As far as I'm aware, the issues that inspired this standard have not changed and, I would argue, have gotten worse. Families are struggling every day to meet rising energy bills, and there are real savings to be had by moving to more efficient light bulbs. Further, while claiming that the incandescent bulb is dead makes for a great sound bite, it just doesn't reflect reality. As a result of the 2007 law, manufacturers already are making a variety of new energy- saving bulbs for homes, including more efficient incandescent bulbs. These bulbs look like and turn on like the bulbs we have been using for decades, but are upwards of 28 to 33 percent more efficient. And that's good for everyone. This is amazing progress in a very short time, considering that previously the basic technology of incandescent bulbs had not changed substantially since they were first introduced over 125 years ago. Philips, GE, and Sylvania are among those currently manufacturing efficient incandescent bulbs. One is making them entirely within the United States, and the others are manufacturing the key components in their U.S. factories. So I would urge my colleagues to please see the light and oppose this amendment. And my dear colleague, Dr. Burgess, knows that, despite the fact that we disagree on this issue, I have the highest respect for his service in this Congress to the people of Texas. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to Representative Noem's amendment. I think that there is a worthy objective of providing freshwater to all parts of our country. We talked about that earlier today. The problem is her amendment takes funds from other accounts to try to move some of those dollars to rural America. Frankly, our fundamental problem is that this bill is $2.8 billion under what was being expended in this fiscal year of 2013, and it's $4 billion under the administration request. So what she's essentially doing is taking money from something else in order to move it to rural areas of the country. I represent some of those. They're very worthy. Some of them do receive funds through the Department of Agriculture. Some smaller communities also have associations with the Environmental Protection Agency. But to cut funds, to take money from the Renewable Energy account--$15 million from there--and from other water-related accounts and to cut departmental administration really is sort of picking off very scarce bones. And I have to oppose the amendment on that basis. The Renewable Energy accounts, which are America's future--they're a major part of our downpayment on the future--have been cut 60 percent. You are withdrawing additional funds from those accounts to try to move toward needed rural water needs. But, frankly, these accounts have been severely cut, and the gentlelady's amendment harms them more. We simply can't cut more from those accounts. I support more funding for the rebuilding of America's urban water systems, which are leaking all over this country. In fact, we just had a collapse in my home community. For some reason, a major intersection just imploded because the water systems underneath weren't properly attended to. This is happening from coast to coast. So our urban water systems are severely constricted. There are all kinds of problems there. And in parts of rural America, obviously we are still trying to extend lines, trying to clean water, trying not to pollute water anymore in order to make sure that citizens who live there and the livestock that is there has sufficient freshwater resources. So I identify with what you're trying to do, but not where you are taking the funds from. Those dollars simply can't be cut any further. So I have to oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition to the gentlelady's amendment. Perhaps we can work in other ways in the future, but the fundamental problem is the bill has been cut $2.8 billion, and some of that is coming from the dollars that would be available for rural water programs. So I strongly oppose the amendment, not because it isn't worthy, but simply because she's raiding other accounts that are cut, literally, to the bone. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Noem amendment.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. This debate is a perfect example of why this bill's funding is so inadequate. What is really being debated is whether we are going to trade off the science of the future, which is so essential to America's competitiveness in the global economy, to take care of necessary past cleanup. Who can make that choice? They are both essential. Are we going to sacrifice the future for the past? That's really what this debate is about. We know that this bill is $4 billion under the administration's request and over $2 billion under what we spent in this fiscal year of 2013. So we really have an argument that nobody wins. If we fund the past cleanup, we sacrifice the future. If we sacrifice the future, do we really take care of all the past cleanup? We hardly do what's necessary, even with current funding. So I think it's a perfect example of where the sequestration process is so counterproductive and moves America backwards. We have very imperfect choices here and actually very dangerous choices that we're being forced to make. I think the majority would be much better suited to come back to us with a budget that allows us to do the job that the Energy and Water Subcommittee is charged with doing. We simply can't try to solve the problem internal to the resources we've been given. It's an impossibility. So somebody is going to lose; and I guarantee you in the past amendment that just came up, some of the people that were the losers have no lobbies here in Washington. The poorest people in our country, who are getting weatherization assistance in order to stay a little bit warmer in the wintertime, they just lost money. They've got no lobby here. They've got none of those people from these various nuclear sites to come in here and lobby for them. Yet they just lost out in a prior amendment. They have a right to an existence in this country, but we are seeing inside the strictures of this set of choices that we've been given that somebody is always a loser. Actually, the country is a loser because of sequestration and the fact that our subcommittee has been given a mark so far below what is reasonable and frankly what we could do if we had a budget that allowed us to move the country forward, rather than create a can't-do Nation. We can't do science, we can't do cleanup because of what we were handed by, what, a Budget Committee whose members don't even appear on the floor to argue their positions during this debate? I feel sorry for our country, and I feel sorry for those who have to come down here and take from one another during this debate and hurt people across this country because our allocation is simply too insufficient to meet the needs of the Nation. So I want to thank the gentlelady for rising on this very important point of science of the future versus cleanup of the past, but we simply don't have the funds in this bill to do both and it puts us in a very destructive position for the interests of our Nation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would say to Congressman Hastings that I rise with sympathy toward the situation you face at Hanford, but must oppose your amendment. The amendment essentially would cut funding from energy efficiency and renewable energy, specifically the weatherization program, which affects dozens and dozens of communities across this country, many of them very low income, as well as departmental administration, which has already been cut to the bone, to move money to Hanford. It is true that the communities that contributed to the Manhattan Project cannot be left with the remnants of that war effort. We have a moral obligation to clean up these sites. Without question, the bill is inadequate to meet the commitments to States and local communities faced with cleanup. However, we cannot take those dollars out of the hides of elderly people who might live in Newark, New Jersey, in the wintertime, or in Portland, Oregon, or places where they can't afford their energy bills, or we can't divert money from administration, which is already cut to such a low level at the Department in order to move dollars to Hanford. Hanford already receives over $2 billion a year--$2 billion. I wish my community received $2 billion. I wish your communities received $2 billion a year. Those dollars come from the River Protection program, over $1.2 billion, plus an additional $877 million, well over $2 billion a year. That's more than most communities represented by Members here can even imagine coming to their region of the country. The defense waste cleanup in Ohio is extraordinary. We don't get $2 billion a year. So to say to senior citizens across this country we are going to take it out of your weatherization program so you can't put plastic around your windows in the wintertime and try to retrofit your houses, or we are going to take it out of departmental administration where we risk accounting for the funds properly for all of these programs that the Department has to administer, including the cleanup, some of these contracts that we've had problems with in that Department, I simply can't support the manner in which the gentleman and the gentlelady have identified where they are taking the money from. So while I agree with their intent, as I've said many times, the allocation for this bill is $2.8 billion under last year and $4 billion under the administration's request and is simply insufficient. We can't keep picking the bones off the most needy parts of our country to try to divert additional dollars to efforts at Hanford that are spending well over $2 billion a year already. I would ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I reluctantly oppose the gentleman's amendment. But in being fair and looking at all the accounts, we simply can't keep picking from the bones of other programs at the Department. I ask my colleagues to vote against the Hastings amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.