Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman and I share a great desire to prevent the spread of Iran's nuclear capabilities, but the only thing that, unfortunately, your amendment does is endanger security, including America's security.

We can differ on how we work with Iran on the broader issue of conditions for an agreement on sanctions and their nuclear program, but that is not the issue we are debating here today. What we are debating here today is the nonproliferation program at the Department of Energy. Stopping the spread of dangerous materials from the Republic of Iran is in our Nation's interest regardless of the outcome of the broader discussion.

While there are currently no plans to work in Iran and no funding that directly supports work in Iran, let me give you a few examples of what your amendment would stop, would preclude:

One, the Department of Energy's nonproliferation program might be asked to engage with Iran to facilitate the removal of excess low-enriched uranium or heavy water from Iran. Such an engagement could necessitate contracts to arrange for the packaging, shipment, and disposition of such materials and would be prevented by the proposed amendment.

Second, the Department of Energy's nonproliferation program might also be asked to engage with Iran to strengthen Iran's nuclear safety, nuclear security, or nuclear safeguard practices. Such engagement could require contracts to provide technical expertise or support logistical arrangements and would be prevented by your amendment.

There may be some who want to use any bill, including our bill, to make political points, but shouldn't we be more concerned about endangering American lives and the lives of other innocents around the world? Wouldn't you prefer that this material be under lock and key in the United States, for example, or with one of our allies than have it stored in Iran? I can only speculate that our security practices are much better.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this amendment because it is sort of an untargeted proposal, and our budget in many places on this bill is very tight. We know the net effect will be to reduce jobs and hurt the middle class in a sector where America needs help, and that is energy independence and the modernization of our infrastructure.

The result of the amendment will be less investment in water resource infrastructure all over this country at a time when global trade is increasing. Energy research and development programs, which lead us to future energy, not past energy resources, which create good jobs and have substantial returns on investment, will be harmed.

At a time when unemployed Americans lose jobless benefits and when many young families struggle just to survive, we should be creating jobs and securing the American Dream through investing in our energy future, including innovation and investments in the ground in every ``all of the above'' energy sector we have, not tearing it down. Just since 2003, the United States has spent $2.3 trillion in importing foreign petroleum. Think about that one.

This is a vast shift of wealth, and thousands upon thousands of jobs are connected to energy production from our country. This amendment only exacerbates this shift of wealth from the American middle class to offshore. It is not something I support, and I doubt the gentleman really wants to support that.

This bill funds critical water resource projects; it supports science activities necessary to breakthroughs to lead us to a new energy future; and it contributes, importantly, to our national defense through vital weapons, naval reactor research, and the nonproliferation funding we had been discussing earlier this evening.

We must make certain decisions to lead our country forward. There are a lot more people who live in this country than lived here in 2008 or 2003. Also, one of the reasons that we have a little bit of uptick in some of the accounts is, there are actually more American people now, so we have got to do some things in terms of the ports. Our ports silt up. We have got to get that out of there in order that we can get larger ships into our ports carrying more goods.

We can't live in the past. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment. Let's take America to the future and not backwards.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I want to share a story. I was out at one of our energy labs in California and walked into a research lab, a Cummins engine was up on the boards. I said, What is going on in here? The answer was, We are trying to understand the science of combustion. I said, You mean it is 2014, and we don't understand that yet? They said, No, Congresswoman, we really don't know what happens inside an internal combustion chamber. They were studying what happens when fuel ignites inside that chamber so they could make it more energy efficient. I was surprised to learn that every single automotive company in this country depends on the results of that research, and Cummins is in the lead.

I want to say to the gentleman, I come from automotive America. When the industry fell to its knees in 2008 because we have never had a trade policy that opens closed markets like Japan and Korea and China, I thought to myself, I never thought I would live to see this day. After the wise decision of a majority of this Congress and the Obama administration, we lifted the automotive industry of this country out of the dregs.

I have watched it recover with vehicles like the Cruze and with the Wrangler, which is leading the list. When I look at what Ford is doing in terms of its EcoBoost engine, I see an industry being reborn in our Nation. The economic growth that comes with it, the incredible muscle that it provides inside the spine of this economy--not tangential growth, but real wealth, real wealth being created, again, across this country in this very important industry--I wouldn't do anything at this point in American history with the closed markets we are facing abroad not to support advanced technology in this country.

What we are competing against in other places are countries disguising themselves as companies, and they are able to subsidize their industry, close their markets, and prevent even our parts going into their original equipment. We can succeed most importantly by advancing automotive technology, advanced vehicle technology.

This particular program allows the component suppliers, as well as the original equipment, to benefit. I can tell you, though, the companies do research themselves; they don't do the kind of basic research that is necessary to provide the incredible breakthroughs that can come through the Department of Energy.

If I said to you 25 years ago, ``Would you believe that 10 percent of gasoline blends are ethanol and renewable fuels,'' you would probably say, ``Congresswoman, you have been staying up too late too many nights of the week.''

In fact, it has happened. Now, we are going to move to a 15 percent renewable blend. Who would have thought that would be possible? Who would have thought we could get 40-mile-a-gallon vehicles on the road? We are moving toward that now, flexible fuel. That is not by accident. This program supports just what it says, advanced technology vehicles manufacturing.

Given concerns that have been expressed by my colleagues regarding appropriate oversight of these programs, I think the net effect of your amendment is going to be to eliminate oversight of this program, which I don't think we want to do. I think we want to make it work for America's sake.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

I strongly oppose this damaging rider by my good friend, Congressman Burgess of Texas, because it would block the Department of Energy from implementing or enforcing commonsense energy efficiency standards for lightbulbs. This rider was a bad idea when it was first offered 4 years ago, and it is even more unsupportable now.

Every claim made by proponents of this rider has been proven wrong. Dr. Burgess told us that the energy efficiency standards would ban incandescent lightbulbs, but that simply is false. You can go to the store today and see shelves of modern, energy-efficient incandescent lightbulbs that meet the standard. They are the same as the old bulbs, except that they last longer, use less electricity, and save consumers money.

We have heard for years that the energy efficiency standards restrict consumer choice. But if you have shopped for lightbulbs lately, which I have, you know that isn't true either. Modern incandescent bulbs, compact fluorescent lightbulbs, and LEDs of every shape, size, and color are now available. Consumers never had more choice.

The efficiency standards spurred innovation that dramatically expanded options for consumers. Critics of the efficiency standards claimed that they would cost consumers money. In fact, the opposite is true. When the standards are in full effect, the average American family will save about $100 every year. That is $13 billion in savings nationwide every year. But this rider threatens those savings, and that is why consumer groups have consistently opposed this rider.

Here is the reality. The 2007 consensus energy efficiency standards for lightbulbs were enacted with bipartisan support and continue to enjoy overwhelming industry support. U.S. manufacturers are already meeting the efficiency standards.

The effect of the rider is to allow foreign manufacturers to sell old, inefficient lightbulbs in the United States that violate the efficiency standards. This is unfair to domestic producers who have invested millions of dollars in U.S. plants to make efficient bulbs that meet the standards.

Why on Earth would we want to pass a rider that favors foreign manufacturers who ignore our laws and penalize U.S. manufacturers who are following our laws?

But it even gets worse. The rider now poses an additional threat to U.S. manufacturing. The bipartisan 2007 energy bill required the Department of Energy to establish updated lightbulb efficiency standards by January 1, 2017. It also provided that if final updated standards are not issued by then, a more stringent standard of 45 lumens per watt automatically takes effect. Incandescent lightbulbs currently cannot meet this backstop standard.

This rider blocks the Department of Energy from issuing the required efficiency standards and ensures that the backstop will kick in. Ironically, it is this rider that could effectively ban the incandescent lightbulb.

The Burgess rider directly threatens existing lightbulb manufacturing jobs in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Illinois, to name but three. It would stifle innovation and punish companies that have invested in domestic manufacturing. This rider aims to reverse years of technological progress, only to kill jobs, increase electricity bills for our constituents, and worsen pollution.

It is time to choose common sense over rigid ideology. 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 Burgess lightbulb rider.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Madam Chair, I oppose the gentleman's amendment, given it is a solution in search of a problem.

Since their implementation, standards for ceiling fans and ceiling fan light kits have saved American consumers--are you ready?--$4.5 billion--billion--in energy costs, and cut greenhouse gas emissions by 22 metric tons.

Nearly a decade ago--why do we have this system? Because three States--California, Maryland, and New York--created their own unique standards for ceiling fan test procedures and performance, and these varying requirements created difficulties for manufacturers marketing products across all 50 States.

In response, the fan manufacturing industry asked the Federal Government for a national standard that would reduce unnecessary complexity. Since that time, the DOE, Department of Energy, has not even proposed a new rule on ceiling fans, so it is premature to react to what might be in a new rule. Even if a new rule is proposed, implementation is years away.

The Department's analysis so far has shown that options exist for increasing ceiling fan efficiency that are cost-effective for manufacturers and the consumers. Any upgrades will enable consumers to save money by saving energy, also moving our country closer to its low-carbon future.

Given the proposed rule has yet to be released, industry cannot anticipate how much their manufacturing costs might increase, whether their business model would be turned upside down, or whether the rule would result in energy growth. Industry has not substantiated any of their claims.

The Department of Energy has conducted extensive consultation with industry stakeholders, including the companies themselves, and any potential indirect effects on air-conditioning units.

The amendment ensures that consumers will be stuck with less efficient fans and higher energy costs. I can't see why we would want to do that.

Let's help this industry. As I have stated, I object to the amendment as proposed and urge a ``no'' vote by my colleagues.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source