Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

What is interesting to me is that the net effect of the King amendment would be to drive wages down, another Republican amendment to not really show any respect for the workers of this country. Are they all going to work for poverty wages?

Millions of our citizens still remain out of work, the middle class is shrinking, and here we have a Member that stands up and he wants to have lower wages. The public wants Congress to create middle class jobs and to pay people what they are worth.

The interesting thing about this amendment is that, when you look back at all the studies that have been done, for instance, when President Bush suspended Davis-Bacon wages during the Hurricane Katrina rebuilding efforts, construction costs went up due to the dramatic increase in the employment of unqualified workers.

I would like to say to the gentleman--and I know you are a handyman because you have told me you are--that the people who work on these projects are ironworkers. I defy anybody in this place to do that. I think Stephen Lynch did that work. Congressman Lynch is about the only one that survived that. Boilermakers, carpenters, operating engineers, electricians, laborers, sheet metal workers, cement masons, roofers, painters, these people go up on those high bridges and they risk their lives. They need training. And do you know what? They deserve the wage they get under contract--under contract--not by happenstance, not by accident.

I find it interesting that the gentleman offers this amendment, because in your district, since 1995, you have received $9 billion in Federal subsidy that goes to your farmers. I don't see the gentleman railing against the subsidies that come to your district. You get insurance. Your farmers get insurance if they lose their crop. What does an ironworker get if he falls off high scaffolding in New York City or Toledo, Ohio, or Cleveland or wherever? What does that worker get?

It is interesting--I think the gentleman is kind of disingenuous--your State ranks second in the Nation for agriculture subsidies. The Federal Government holds you up. Davis-Bacon simply says that, when you go to work, the price of what you are paid, your labor, is by contract; it is not by happenstance; it is not by accident; it is not by exploitation. In fact, we know when better buildings are built, when safe bridges are built, there are no washouts under tunnels and bridges. That is a good thing. That is a good thing for America.

So I hold respect for the workers who want to work, who receive the training to work, who know how difficult the work is.

I will tell you a story from my own district. We built one of the biggest bridges in Ohio several years back. We lost ironworkers and an operating engineer in that process, though we had signed every kind of safety agreement we could possibly sign. And do you know what happened? The construction company decided, because there were at least two lanes, they would pit sets of workers against one another to see who could finish the job fast enough. What happened was some of the cranes were not secured at the base as they hung above the river. The construction company, which was supposed to be abiding by the law and all the safety standards, found a trick in order to save a couple of pennies, and it cost the lives of some of the finest workers in the country.

I devoted months and months and months to making sure that there were good safety standards in place. And they always find a way around it.

This is dangerous work. This is work that most people in this Chamber most likely never thought about, never did; don't understand what these workers go through in cold winter months, hanging above oil rigs across this country; handling public projects underground, above ground, above water.

It is unbelievable what these people do. They go to other countries. Look at the dangerous scaffolding that exists in places like Ukraine, and you respect the trades of this country, who have managed to build apprenticeship and training programs so we don't lose lives needlessly.

Davis-Bacon assures we have a middle class standard; that we have labor valued by contract, not by accident, not by happenstance, not by subsidy, like the gentleman's district gets, but by plain hard work.

I couldn't be more in opposition to any amendment offered this afternoon, and I think the gentleman must be misguided in what he is trying to do here. But I think it is important to have definable standards.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, this amendment tells the Department of Energy to deny the latest climate change science.

The amendment denies that carbon pollution is harmful and, according to this amendment, the cost of carbon pollution is zero. That is science denial at its worst.

You don't have to look too far to discover the damage already caused by climate change. In fact, in the State that I live in, what used to be Tennessee's ecosytem and climate zone is no more. It has been moved up. If you plant any seed in the ground, you look at the back of the packet, it has all been changed.

We see very unusual weather patterns developing all across our Nation and the world.

We can't put our heads in the sand and deny reality. There is a reality out there.

There was a book written called, ``Last Child in the Woods,'' and it talks about how most Americans now don't spend enough time outdoors. In fact, a lot of them are even afraid to be out there. So a lot of people spend their life in air-conditioned situations or well-heated situations and don't really look at what is happening to our ecosytem.

In May, our Nation's leading climate scientists released the National Climate Assessment, which confirmed that climate change is real, it is caused by humans, and it is already harming communities across America. The assessment explains that scientific evidence is ``unequivocal.'' This amendment tells the Department to ignore these scientific findings.

The latest science shows that climate change is expected to exacerbate heat waves. Has anybody noticed the erratic nature of what is happening in the places you live?

Droughts. I heard Senator Feinstein say the other day that California is become a desert State. Interesting statement.

Wildfires. Who can deny those?

Floods and water- and vector-borne diseases will pose greater risk to human health, to animal life, and any living creatures around us.

It is interesting to me that, in my own State, the pork industry is undergoing an incredible implosion because of something that is infecting the hog population and they are being lost, not by the tens or the hundreds or the thousands, but by the millions. There is something wrong.

Wheat and corn yields are already experiencing negative impact due to climate change. After 2050, the risk of overall declining crop yields increases substantially.

Federal agencies have a responsibility to calculate the cost of climate change and take them into account.

Unfortunately, what this amendment would require is that the government assume zero harm and zero cost from carbon pollution and carbon change.

The truth is that unchecked climate change would have catastrophic economic impacts here in the United States and across the globe. Those who are less fortunate will bear the heaviest burdens.

I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. Don't be a science denier. Pretending that climate change doesn't exist won't make it go away. Maybe every single Member of this Chamber should have to enroll in some STEM classes so that science and technology and engineering and math are a part of our DNA and it might be easier to really evaluate the world around us with more objectivity.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me say that Federal agencies have a responsibility to calculate the costs of climate change and to take them into account. This amendment would tell the Department to ignore those impacts, and that, in my judgment, is irresponsible.

The administration is using common sense, and that was the clear message from the Government Accountability Office when it added climate change to its high-risk list. That is exactly what the Obama administration is doing.

An interagency task force worked over the last couple of years to estimate the costs of harm from carbon pollution. The cost calculation was first issued in 2010, and a refined and updated calculation was published last year.

It incorporated updated scientific and technical information, and it was a very conservative calculation. The full costs of climate change are almost certainly going to be significantly higher, but it is better than the previous estimate, and it is much, much better than assuming that the costs are zero.

So I urge my colleagues to reject the Lankford amendment. Again, don't be a science denier. Let's not pretend climate change doesn't exist. That won't make it go away.

Let's behave as though we care about future generations and are doing our very best to meet the challenges of the current era.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source