Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to assure the Members that the following amendment is the one that we are debating: ``None of the funds made available by this act may be used to revoke funding previously awarded to or within the State of North Carolina.''
Is this the amendment that the gentleman is offering?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Okay. I thank the Chair so very much. In such case, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment which ties the hands of several departments--certainly the Department of Energy, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, all of our independent agencies that are contained in the bill, like Denali and Northern Border--from making responsible financial decisions and basic oversight of Federal dollars going into North Carolina.
I find it interesting that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle support this amendment, as they normally are such strong supporters of fiscal responsibility and government accountability and fiscal oversight. Prohibiting the Federal Government from being able to withhold or revoke funding in a particular State would abandon that principle.
How do we know that contractors are meeting their obligations? How do we know that criminal activity is not occurring inside the State of North Carolina related to Federal expenditures in that State?
If this amendment were accepted, the Department of Energy, the Army Corps of Engineers--these are huge contracting departments--would be prohibited from conducting investigations of performance issues related to contracts or financial assistance awards. The departments could not terminate financial assistance agreements for material noncompliance.
I don't think that the gentleman wishes to promote irresponsibility, but I think that is what his amendment actually does. If an award winner wanted to terminate their relationship with one of the departments or agencies under our bill for whatever reason, the Federal Government could not accept that termination. This throws a wrench into every Federal project inside of your State. I don't think the gentleman really wants to do that.
If an organization which receives funding, for example, from the Department of Energy commits fraud, the Department of Energy has no recourse. They can't report on the performance of the organization because it could prevent them from winning future awards.
I can think of no greater irresponsible or unjust system than building on restrictions that deny the American people a proper functioning oversight by the Federal Government, including the literally billions of dollars that go into the State of North Carolina. Those don't only come from our committee or our subcommittee, but they are significant.
I must oppose this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining, please?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I hate to disagree with the chairman of our subcommittee. But let me just say that the amendment actually reads: ``None of the funds made available by this act may be used to revoke funding previously awarded.''
``None of the funds.'' That means there can be no oversight. If criminal activity is occurring, none of the funds may be used to revoke funding previously awarded.
What kind of an amendment is this? This is a very irresponsible amendment, and it shouldn't be on this bill. If the gentleman has got some problem down there he wants to solve, we will be happy to work with him on that on. But I think to tie the hands of our government in making sure that every taxpayer dollar is properly managed and has oversight is really wrongheaded.
Again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Pittenger amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman and Members, this amendment tells the Department of Energy to ignore the latest climate change science. Even worse, the amendment denies that carbon pollution is harmful.
According to this amendment, the cost of carbon pollution is zero. That is science denial at its worst, and, frankly, it is just simply wrong.
Tell homeowners in Arizona or those who live up in Canada, where the wildfires have just raged and who have seen their homes ravaged by drought-stoked wildfires, that there are no costs from climate change.
If you are a gardener, like I am, even the backs of seed packets have changed, because what used to be a Tennessee tomato, now we grow it in Ohio. The climate zones are moving north. It is getting warmer.
Tell that to the firefighters who have to put everything else on the line to fight those fires that rage in California and points west or north.
Tell that to the children and the elderly that will be plagued by heat stress and vulnerable to increased disease.
Tell that to the people evacuated from the Isle de Jean Charles in Louisiana who will lose homes as their island vanishes under the rising sea.
Or how about Houston, Texas, with the flash flooding? That is one of the most recent.
These people are looking to us to protect America and to protect them, and they are looking to the Republicans to finally be reasonable.
The truth is that no one will escape the effects of unmitigated climate change. It will have an impact on all of us, and, frankly, it is having an impact on all of us.
But this amendment waves a magic wand and decrees that climate change imposes no costs at all. House Republicans can vote for this amendment. They can try to block the Department from recognizing the damage caused by climate change and the potential damage, but they cannot overturn the laws of nature. They are powerful.
We should be heeding the warnings of the climate scientists, not denying reality. Thank God we have them. We don't have to operate in ignorance.
Recently, our Nation's leading climate scientists released the National Climate Assessment, which continues to show evidence confirming the ongoing impacts of climate change.
Leading scientists around the world, not just here, agree the evidence is unambiguous. This amendment tells the Department to ignore some of the wisest people in the world.
The latest science shows that climate change is expected to exacerbate heat waves--those have been felt around the country-- droughts--look at Lake Mead in Las Vegas. Look at the rings going down.
Look at millions and millions of acres now enduring wildfires. Look at the added floods, water- and vector-borne diseases, which will be greater risks to human health and lives around the world.
The security of our food supply will diminish, resulting in reductions in production and increases in prices.
According to a leading climate science body, the IPCC, increasing global temperatures and drastic changes in water availability, which we have just heard about on this floor, in California, for heaven's sake, combined with an increase in food demand poses large risks to food security globally and regionally.
When I was born, there were 146 million people in this country. By 2050, we will have 500 million. It takes more animals, it takes more machines, it takes more energy, to feed that population, and it takes much more to feed the global population.
Human beings and our way of life do have an impact on what happens on this very, very suspended planet in the Milky Way galaxy.
This amendment tells the Department to ignore these and many other impacts, and, frankly, I view that as irresponsible.
Federal agencies have a responsibility to calculate the costs of climate change and take them into account. It is plain common sense, and it is a life-and-death matter.
That is exactly what the Obama administration is doing. An interagency task force worked over the course of several years to estimate the costs of the harm from carbon pollution.
The cost calculation was first issued in 2010 and updated in 2014 and continues to be refined by incorporating new scientific and technical information and soliciting input from leading experts.
This was a very constructive calculation and a conservative one at that, with the full costs of climate change almost certainly being higher. But it is better than the previous estimate and much, much better than assuming the costs are nothing.
Unfortunately, that is what this amendment would require the government to assume: zero harm, zero costs, zero danger, from carbon pollution and climate change.
The truth is that unchecked climate change would have a catastrophic economic and human impact here and across the world.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, years ago, there were people that served in this body that denied that America should pass a Clean Water Act. Today, in many places in our country when we turn on the tap, we trust what we drink. We had to change our way of life. Yes, we had to make investments, but we produced a stronger country.
There were those who fought against the Clean Air Act. You can go back and read the Record. There are always those folks who have difficulty embracing the future.
This amendment blocks funding for the Department of Energy's Climate Model Development and Validation program. This is climate science denial at its worst.
It used to be that people said, well, it is okay that industry dumps in the water. It kind of washes everything out somewhere. Well, when the bald eagle became an endangered species, it became pretty clear that all of that pollution was causing long-term damage. Now the world's top scientists are telling us that we have a rapidly closing window to reduce our carbon pollution before the catastrophic impacts of climate change cannot be avoided.
So far, the world has already warmed by 0.9 degrees Celsius, and we are already seeing the effects of climate change. Most scientists agree that 2 degrees Celsius is the maximum amount we can warm without really dangerous tipping points, although many scientists now believe that even 2 degrees is far too much, given the effects we are already experiencing all around the world. But absent dramatic action, we are on track to warm 4 to 6 degrees Celsius by midcentury. That is more than 10 degrees Fahrenheit.
Even with the pledges to reduce carbon emissions as part of COP 21, we are still in danger of experiencing the drastic consequences of climate change, including increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events and drought. The International Energy Agency has concluded that increased efforts are still needed--in addition to existing pledges--to stay within the 2-degree limit.
We are already seeing the devastation from climate change, including, recently, the evacuation of climate refugees from the Isle de Jean Charles near New Orleans. So you sort of think to the world you knew versus the world of the future, and you have to embrace the future, and you have to help those who are going to follow us.
There are multiple lines of evidence, including direct measurements, that life is changing. The projections that these models anticipate are critical as they provide the guideposts to understanding how quickly and how steeply the world needs to cut carbon pollution in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
The goal of the Department of Energy's Climate Model Development and Validation program is to further improve the reliability of climate models and equip policymakers and citizens with tools to predict the current and future effects of climate change, such as sea level rise, extreme weather events, and drought.
This amendment scraps this program. It says ``no'' to enhancing the reliability of our climate models. Who wouldn't want that? It says ``no'' to investing in the security of the people of this Nation and the Nation's assets themselves. It says ``no'' to improving our understanding of how the climate is changing, and it says ``no'' to informing policymakers about the consequences of unmitigated climate change. That is absolutely irresponsible and an outcome this Nation cannot afford.
It is interesting. There is an author, Richard Louv, who has written a book, ``Last Child in the Woods.'' What it talks about is how America has become so technologically sophisticated that most people have lost a real connection to nature, especially our children, who spend 8 hours in front of a blue screen. But perhaps it is because of that technological advancement and lack of connection to nature that we do not have a population--including, perhaps, some who serve in this Chamber--that observe what nature is actually doing in her powerful force.
I would urge our colleagues to read that book and to think a little bit about reconnecting to nature, paying attention to what the temperature is of the lake near you or the ocean near you. Pay attention to what is happening in our coastal communities. Pay attention to what is happening in agriculture and our ability to produce food for the future because of changes in weather.
What is happening with rainfall? There is a lot going on. What happens to clouds in your region of the country? How close do they come to the Earth? When the rain falls, how severe are those weather events? These events are happening around our country and around our world.
Mr. Chairman, I have to rise in opposition, obviously, to this amendment and urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment because I don't think it leads us into the future. I think it takes us back into the past, to a world that does not exist anymore.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the fine gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Mr. Yoho
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chair, I join the chairman in opposing this amendment. It is, truly, a blunt cut--5 percent to the Department of Energy from its current level with no analysis, no consultation, no consideration of impact. It is just a blunt cut. It would actually mean about 700 people who would be fired at headquarters, at field offices, even at our Power Marketing Administrations across the West. Layoffs of this magnitude would profoundly impede the Department of Energy's ability to oversee its nuclear security responsibilities, its science and energy and environmental cleanup mandates.
I strenuously oppose this amendment and urge the gentleman to bring back a more thoughtful amendment at some point if he wishes, but I don't support the blunt cut.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, the Black amendment would prohibit financial assistance to any State or political subdivision that is acting in contravention of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. But this is an energy and water bill. This isn't a part of our bill.
I rise in opposition to the amendment because it is, frankly, nongermane. The Department of Energy isn't involved. The Army Corps of Engineers or the Bureau of Reclamation or the regional independent agencies that are under the jurisdiction of this bill have nothing to do with the concern that the gentlewoman raises.
Why are we debating immigration policy on an Energy and Water Appropriations bill? It doesn't make any sense.
Frankly, the amendment would prohibit funding for State and local governments that have policies against the sharing of information related to immigration status, but State and local law enforcement routinely and automatically share biometric information with ICE that is used to determine immigration status. They do so through the same electronic system that shares these biometrics with the FBI for checks against the criminal databases. So even if this amendment were germane, I don't think the amendment is necessary or would do what the gentlewoman believes that it would do.
Even more to the point, if the premise of the amendment is that local law enforcement agencies aren't notifying ICE prior to releasing from custody individuals who fit ICE immigration enforcement priorities, then the amendment is misguided because the Department of Homeland Security has established a priority enforcement program, known as the PEP, designed to better work with State and local law enforcement to take custody of criminal aliens who pose a danger in public safety before they are released into our communities.
Prior to that program's establishment, 377 jurisdictions refused to honor some or all of ICE detainers. But as of early this year, 277 of those jurisdictions, or 73 percent, have now signed up to participate in that program by responding to ICE requests for notification, honoring detainer requests, or both.
So the Department of Homeland Security is making good progress in soliciting the participation of State and local law enforcement in the PEP program, and we should support them in those efforts and avoid muddling the issue and reject this amendment.
The Department of Homeland Security is not a part of the Appropriations Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee; and it is doubtful that this amendment would have any effect, even if it were germane to the bill and not subject to a point of order.
Because this biometric sharing system is in effect across the country, no jurisdiction currently refuses to share information about immigration with ICE. So, as a result, it is difficult to see how this amendment would have any effect whatsoever, even if it were offered on the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Committee or the Department of Homeland Security bills.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Frankly, it is not germane to this bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. I appreciate the chairman yielding to me. I agree with his opposition to this amendment.
Why blame one of the best parts of our government, in my opinion, for Congress not doing its job? I am always impressed with the Energy Information Administration. Their data is stellar. They are professionally run. The business community looks to them. Frankly, the global energy community looks to them.
I think the amendment is shortsighted and would eliminate one of the best, most important sources of information that guides all of our decisions. They are so precise. The data that they present also can be easily understood. They have maps. They have charts. They have continuous data over a number of years.
I think the gentleman wants to solve a problem, but I think that one could say that this amendment might be penny wise and pound foolish because, if you have had any experience with the Energy Information Administration, you know how excellent they really are and their work is.
We depend on it in order to make solid decisions to save money or to make decisions that are sound rather than unsound. Don't rip the heart out of one of the most important administrations that we have at the Federal level on the energy front.
I thank the chairman for yielding.
I would urge that this amendment be defeated.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order on the amendment to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say that I associate myself with Congressman Maloney's remarks. Workplace discrimination is a crime that we, as lawmakers, have long sought to mitigate.
I have to say I admire him for his courage, for his eloquence, and for being here this evening.
I yield to the gentleman from New York in order to complete his statement.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, let me just end by saying, this country has a long and storied history of supporting civil rights and worker rights, and that spirit was clearly violated last week during the vote on the spending bill.
We know that businesses should operate under strict rules of fairness and equality, and, certainly, the Federal Government should.
I am just grateful that we could all be here this evening and try to find a way to move America forward and to make progress, not just for the people of this country, but for humankind.
This amendment will ensure that we are able to achieve a fully equitable workplace and society.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I don't have a copy of the amendment in front of me, but from what I have listened to the gentleman, it sounds like discrimination in the guise of religious freedom, and I would hope that isn't what the gentleman intends.
I have just been given language: ``None of the funds made available by this Act shall be used in contravention of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.''
I don't have full confidence that the equal protection of the laws for the faith-based community are fully considered in this amendment, and I would have to oppose the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment and want to begin by saying that ideological riders have no place on appropriation bills, certainly on this bill, and, frankly, I don't believe that this is even germane to the Energy and Water Development bill.
This amendment is just the first of many possible attempts to tie the hands of the administration from implementing an extremely important international agreement that will result in exactly the opposite of what the gentleman infers.
The plan of action that was agreed to by several countries, P5+1, closed the four pathways through which Iran could get to a nuclear weapon in less than a year. We do not gain anything by putting limitations on United States' ability to engage or monitor Iran's compliance with the agreement. The President has repeatedly said that he will continue to take aggressive steps to counter any activities in violation of existing sanctions, and this includes restrictions on certain nuclear-related transfers, conventional arms, and ballistic missile items, certain asset freezes and travel bans, as well as cargo inspections.
Today, international inspectors are on the ground, and Iran is being subjected to the most comprehensive, intrusive inspection regime ever negotiated to monitor a nuclear program. Inspectors will remain to monitor Iran's key nuclear facilities 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. For decades to come, inspectors will have access to Iran's entire nuclear supply chain. That is an incredible achievement.
The Department of Energy's vast expertise in the nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear safeguards and security, and nuclear materials plays a critical role in informing and ensuring that Iran is meeting its nuclear commitments.
To date, experts at the Department of Energy headquarters, seven national laboratories, and two Department of Energy nuclear sites have been actively involved in reaching and now implementing the agreement. These experts will continue to support the International Atomic Energy Agency's monitoring and verification activities worldwide and are vital as the United States works with our P5+1 and European Union partners to ensure viability into Iran's nuclear program.
Why would we proactively cut off our nonproliferation program and experts from working to prevent Iran to achieve nuclear weapons? Isn't that counter to our own national security interests?
In other words, if Iran tries to cheat, if they try to build a bomb covertly, we will catch them, the world will catch them, unless we here in Congress undo these efforts and adopt amendments such as the one we are discussing now.
The bottom line is this: Iran was steadily expanding its nuclear program. The agreement has now cut off every single path to build a bomb.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this harmful amendment and encourage my colleagues to oppose as well.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chair, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee has been absolutely unrelenting in her representation of Houston and of the serious situation that is faced there by the citizenry and leaders because of the flooding. What a tremendous voice she is for the people whom she represents. There isn't a time that I see her in the elevators or walking around that she doesn't ask me about this bill and about wanting to come down and amend it to make sure that it is sensitive to the needs of Houston. I just wanted to put that on the record.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, this amendment is actually costly, inefficient, and it rolls back progress in a department that has really been experiencing tremendous leadership under Dr. Ernest Moniz.
The Mullin amendment would stop the Department of Energy from proposing or finalizing any rule that may cost more than $100 million annually, the Congressman says. Mr. Chair, this is just another attempt to ensure that agencies are unable to enact important rules and regulations that protect consumers and benefit our Nation.
What if that had been done back when the Clean Water Act was first passed?
We would have had communities across this country pumping sewage into their kitchens.
At the DOE alone, the Mullin amendment would stall 14 rules that are currently in progress, a third of which are consensus agreements that the DOE has worked with industry to finalize. The amendment would also waste valuable manpower and resources for both the DOE and the industries involved in these consensus agreements.
This makes no sense. We need to move on with the business of America. Taking a myopic view of our Nation's regulatory practices is nothing new for this majority. Time and again, we have seen appropriation riders and authorizing legislation that only looks at the costs that are associated with agency rules and that completely ignores the associated benefits to our country. This amendment is no different.
These proposals overlook the extensive review process that already exists for rules. For example, every new rule is already scrutinized up and down by numerous Federal agencies as well as by key stakeholders and the public through very, very extensive input that agencies seek. Let me explain.
For economically significant rules, an agency must provide the Office of Management and Budget with an assessment and, to the extent possible, with a quantification of the benefits as well as of the costs of a proposed rule. In accordance with Executive Order No. 12866, the agency has to justify the costs associated with the rule, and these costs are justified with benefits, which is something the Mullin amendment appears to think doesn't exist, but that is simply false.
For example, in his 2015 analysis of the estimated costs and benefits of significant Federal regulations, the OMB estimated that, over the last decade, the benefits of these rules outweighed the economic costs by nine to one--and that is OMB. These benefits have translated into real money for the American taxpayer.
As a result of standards established by the DOE, a typical American household already saves over $200 a year on its energy bill. That comes in different forms. Whether it is a more efficient refrigerator or whether it is light bulbs or whether it is insulation, we all know the benefits.
Besides economic benefits, these standards provide benefits to our environment and the well-being of our communities. The 40 new or updated standards issued by the DOE will assist in reducing carbon emissions by over 2 million metric tons through 2030, and will help this Nation curb climate change, which we all know threatens the health of our environment as well as of our communities.
Republicans should stop trying to undermine the rulemaking process. They should stop ignoring the real-world benefits of these rules to society and the progress that we are making as a country.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I urge Members to oppose the gentleman's amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I am opposed to the amendment as the provision interferes with the standard practice spanning administrations of both parties and raises potential constitutional concerns.
It is standard practice for agencies processing Freedom of Information Act requests to confer with other executive branch entities with equities, including the White House, prior to releasing documents. Agencies refer documents to the White House just as they refer documents to other agencies.
The practice of agencies consulting with the White House prior to Freedom of Information Act requests regarding White House equities is longstanding, spanning administrations of both parties. The Reagan administration issued a memorandum in 1988 directing such consultation.
Finally, the provision could interfere with the President's ability to protect privileged information and thereby could raise constitutional concerns in some applications. This is just one more instance of the majority prioritizing message amendments rather than getting on with the hard work of legislating.
I oppose this amendment. It has no place on an appropriations bill and should be defeated.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has hit a very soft spot with me here, the automotive and trucking industries, so vital to my area of the country and so vital to the whole economy.
Actually, the manufacturing part of America, as it recovers, is lifting us to new heights with economic growth. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment because, again, it takes America backward, not forward.
This amendment seeks to prohibit funding for the Department of Energy's 21st Century Clean Transportation Plan, which is a fantastic initiative which would set America on a long-term path to achieving our economic and climate goals.
I am telling you, when you see some of what is being done with new materials science, with new composites, with metals and plastics technologies, I can go from Ford's Ecoboost engine, to Chrysler's new vehicles, to Dana's new axle plant being built in the Midwest, to General Motors and the wonderful work that they are doing at Brook Park. One plant after another, you can see the results of innovation where the Department of Energy, working with the private sector, is bringing the future to us every day.
The 21st Century Clean Transportation Plan would scale up clean transportation research and development, critical for the clean transportation systems of the future. Did you know that in the internal combustion engine we still do not understand how fuel actually burns? The Department of Energy is doing wonderful research to try to help important companies like Cummins Engine figure out how fuel is actually used in those engines to make them more efficient.
We have to talk about reducing the cost of batteries and developing low-carbon fuels such as biofuels. We don't have all the answers. Industry alone doesn't do it alone because some of this is basic research.
We also are involved in funding the development of regional low- carbon fueling infrastructure, including charging stations for electric vehicles for those people who choose to purchase those and pumps for hydrogen fuel cell cars. Yes, we are inventing the future. You know what? It feels pretty good.
Finally, it would investigate future mobility and intelligent transportation systems like vehicle connectivity and self-driving cars. Last week the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association was up here, and I went over to the northeastern part of the city, drove a Peterbilt truck with Bendix technology and with the automatic braking systems that are just incredible in a vehicle that has a cubic ratio of about 480 cubic inches to that engine. What an incredible piece of engineering that is.
The Department of Energy is always driving us into the future, and that is where we need to go. Our Nation has always been a leader on innovation. To sustain this pace, we must continue to invest in programs like the 21st Century Clean Transportation Plan, which drives our economy forward.
The automotive industry and all the related suppliers, including trucks, represent about one out of every seven jobs in this country. We are in stiff competition with markets that are closed, with markets that try to target our industry and snuff them out of existence. I think that we have to do everything possible.
I co-chair the House Automotive Caucus here along with Congressman Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania, and I would have to say that the gentleman's amendment does not take us forward, but backward.
I would urge my colleagues to oppose it very, very strongly.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. Any proposal to sunset the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program or limit the pipeline of projects that may be eligible is shortsighted and should be rejected.
Why? First, the program is a critical one for the American automotive industry and has supported its resurgence. They have issued more than $8 billion in loans to date, and these loans have resulted in the manufacture of more than 4 million fuel-efficient advanced vehicles, supported approximately 35,000 direct jobs across eight States, including California, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Kentucky, New York, and Tennessee, and saved more than 1.35 million gallons of gasoline. Not too bad.
The success has been achieved with losses of only approximately 2 percent of a total portfolio of $32 billion for the loan programs office. That is a lower percent than most banks have on the loans that they make. What we are talking about here is higher level research, higher level investments in technologies that are yet being born.
Why else should we reject this amendment? Instituting an arbitrary and immediate deadline for applications to this program would result in the Department losing billions of dollars in loan authority itself. The program currently has billions in loan requests in the pipeline from both automakers and component manufacturers for projects in 10 States.
Thirdly, capping the program of eligible projects will hinder the Department's ability to issue new loans to support domestic manufacturing of advanced vehicles especially at a time when we are asking the industry to meet rising fuel economy standards.
It is really amazing what has been done just in the last 15 years. When we look at some of the vehicles coming out now, we are seeing vehicles like the Cruze, 33 miles a gallon. Some are going up to 40, some to 50. It is really amazing what has happened, the transformation that is happening in this industry that we are living through directly.
I oppose the gentleman's amendment because I really do believe innovation has always led us into the future. This is the kind of program that can provide the capital necessary to expand our domestic manufacturing when so much of it is being offshored. It is a major issue in the Presidential election this year in both political parties, how we are going to restore manufacturing in this country.
We have to do it through innovation. We have to do it in sectors that are muscle sectors like the automotive and truck industry that are so vital and produce real wealth for this country, not imported wealth, but wealth that we produce ourselves through all the componentry, the thousands and thousands and thousands of components that go into these vehicles, and the fuel efficiency that makes them competitive in the marketplace of today.
I oppose the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I oppose the gentleman's amendment. It is just one more instance where the majority is saddling the consumer with ever-increasing energy bills. We know how the standards have really saved consumers money over the years. I have some figures here that are very interesting.
A typical household saves about $216 a year off their energy bills now as a result of renewed standards. As people replace their appliances with newer models, they can expect to save more than $453 annually by 2030. The cumulative utility bill savings to consumers from all standards in effect since 1987 are estimated to be nearly $1 trillion by 2020 and grow to nearly $2 trillion through 2030.
Invention does matter. And the application of that to our daily life really matters. The efficiency standards have spurred innovation that dramatically expanded options for consumers. It is time to choose common sense over rigid ideology, and it is time to listen to the manufacturing companies, consumer groups, and efficiency advocates, who all agree this rider is harmful.
I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the Buck amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I also oppose this amendment, which will reduce jobs in our country and hurt the middle class. There will be less investment in science, environmental cleanup, energy research and development, all of which create the future in this country, and have substantial returns on investments.
Since 2003, by the way, the United States has spent $2.3 trillion on importing foreign petroleum. This is a vast shift of wealth. That is the big shift of wealth, and thousands upon thousands of jobs from our country elsewhere. This amendment only exacerbates this shift of wealth from the American middle class.
The bill funds support in science and R&D activities necessary for our competitiveness. The world is becoming more competitive, not less. Energy is at the center of that.
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentleman's amendment. Really, this provision doesn't belong on this appropriations bill. It is an issue best considered by the Foreign Affairs Committee.
This amendment would prevent the Department from spending any fiscal 17 funds to purchase heavy water produced in Iran and would undermine the Iran deal.
This transaction provides the United States industry with a critical product while enabling Iran to sell some of its excess heavy water as contemplated in the agreement and further ensuring that this product will not be used to develop a nuclear weapon, which is the objective that we all sought when we supported the agreement. Heavy water is needed here in our country. We stopped producing it in 1988 and now buy what we need from India and other countries.
A portion of this heavy water will be used at the Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and by manufacturers for fiberoptic cable, MRI machines, and semiconductors.
Most importantly, U.S. purchase of this heavy water prevents Iran from selling it to those who would choose to use it for the wrong reasons.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the DeSantis amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source