Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, please let me begin by thanking our diligent committee staff for all of their hard work on this bill, including on both the majority and minority sides. They are a great…
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, please let me begin by thanking our diligent committee staff for all of their hard work on this bill, including on both the majority and minority sides. They are a great group of Americans. I thank Scott McKee and Adam Wilson and, on my personal staff, Mayely Boyce and Margaret McInnis.
I also thank Representative Derek Kilmer for his diligent and honorable public service as we present what will be his last bill. Derek has been a stalwart, serious, and exemplary member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies for many years. His sincere dedication and constant commitment have improved our Nation for today and the tomorrows to come. We will miss him greatly. We all know he will find a way to keep fighting for a more perfect and greater Union, and we thank him for his public service and his meritorious efforts to meet the needs of the American people.
Energy and water undergird America's way of life. They are not optional. They are essential to sustaining life itself.
Our Nation is projected to grow to 400 million people by 2050, three times more people than following World War II. Our bill must catch up to the future, not backpedal.
Sadly, this Republican Energy-Water Development appropriations bill does not meet our Nation's imperative for the future. America must become energy independent in perpetuity. Their bill slow-walks our Nation's obligation to ensure modern, dependable, affordable energy and clean water for millions of our citizens. Thus, it fails to embrace a modern and more secure future.
We cannot behave as though it is 1950. This Energy-Water Development appropriations bill cuts $1.5 billion, or 43 percent, from the Department of Energy's energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. They are essential to meeting our Nation's new challenges due to weather-related disasters, as we witness home and commercial business insurance rates rising all across our country.
This bill revokes $8 billion from the Department of Energy's loan programs. A cut of this size would immediately constrict the Department of Energy's ability to spur American manufacturing and innovation in this new climate age.
The bill also slashes the Weatherization Assistance Program, resulting in approximately 54,000 fewer low-income homes receiving weatherization services across our country.
Let me be clear. The cuts in this bill will absolutely jeopardize innovation to achieve American energy independence and security. These cuts will hurt. These cuts will increase energy costs for millions of our fellow citizens, including families and seniors struggling to make ends meet. This bill pushes our Nation backward.
While our Nation has made great strides toward energy independence after half a century of effort, we have not reached home plate and scored on U.S. energy independence in perpetuity.
For example, the United States is fulfilling more of its crude oil needs with domestic supplies than ever before. Thankfully, U.S. net crude oil imports are at the lowest they have been since 1972. Let Russia keep its own oil.
While decreased reliance on imports should give the U.S. more control over prices, consumers are not seeing the full benefits in the price they pay at the pump.
With an adversarial Russia weaponizing energy to destabilize global markets, it is clear that America needs more energy innovation and diversification to reduce our dependence on any form of imported, foreign energy supplies.
Further, we must not cede our solar and chip future to China. We know that China is more than willing to dump products and components to wipe out our domestic industries. We have witnessed this. We know this because it is happening in steel, pharmaceuticals, electronics, and automotive. It simply cannot happen in anything related to energy.
In this new century marked by extreme weather events and increased natural disasters, this bill endangers efforts to address the climate crisis. During 2023, there were 28 separate billion-dollar weather and climate disasters in this country. In 2024, we are already witnessing an escalation of events like heat waves across America. It is 115 degrees in Phoenix today as I talk. There is major flooding throughout the Midwest. Wildfires are burning in the West, earlier than ever. We had the most intense hurricane to form in the Atlantic so early in the year.
We have States hitting rainfall records. June was the 13th month in a row to set a monthly temperature record. The Wall Street Journal reported property insurance premiums are rising significantly or being completely cut off across our Nation.
The total cost from the billion-dollar disasters in 2023 was a record-setting $92.9 billion, almost $100 billion. We can either continue to pay more for disaster response, or we can invest now in climate mitigation and adaptation that will also lower costs for consumers, create jobs, and increase our global competitiveness. The pathway seems crystal clear to me.
Thus, I oppose the Republicans' cuts to vital energy and climate programs. Shortchanging these advances pushes
our Nation backward by slow-walking energy innovation, failing to modernize our Nation's electric grids, failing to advance innovation relative to our global competitors in materials and manufacturing, and failing to build domestic end-to-end supply chains for jobs in the new energy economy, American jobs.
In other areas of this bill, while I support many of the bill's efforts to maintain a safe, secure, and credible nuclear deterrent and robust naval nuclear propulsion program--God bless them--I am concerned how this bill cuts nuclear nonproliferation programs that reduce nuclear risks and counter the global challenge of nuclear proliferation.
Finally, the bill includes numerous controversial poison pill policy riders that sadly show extremist Republicans are not interested in bills that can gain bipartisan support and become law.
I truly do appreciate working with Chairman Fleischmann, a very, very hardworking Member, and our colleagues to develop and pass bipartisan bills, as has long been this committee's practice, including last year. I am saddened that this vital subcommittee is being steered to return to a partisan process for this fiscal year 2025 House bill. Americans all witnessed how chaos and extremism played out last year, and we all fully should know a bipartisan compromise is the only avenue to finalize these bills.
Americans expect us to negotiate our differences, work together across the aisle, and do our jobs to find the big middle. America's future relies on the new age frontiers of energy and water. America can and must do better, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. McClellan).
Mr. Chair, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the distinguished and extremely hardworking ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close.
As I said before, Mr. Chairman, America's future relies on our new age frontiers of energy and water. This bill does not meet the mark. America can and must excel.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. This en bloc contains noncontroversial amendments from Members of both parties, and I have no objection.
Mr. Chair, I urge support of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, as the designee of Ms. DeLauro, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Flood
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The amendment purports to prohibit funding for what is termed ``lab- grown meat'' at the Department of Energy.
One would normally think of the Department of Agriculture as the place for that to occur. However, the actual amendment text prohibits funds to be ``used for or to advance the research, development, demonstration, processing, or promotion of alternative proteins.''
The term ``alternative proteins,'' without getting too deep into the scientific weeds, is very broad, and this would likely have an impact largely beyond the purported intent related to lab-grown meat.
Members probably have seen some of the scientific and medical work being done across our country, for example, in kidney transplantation. There is great crossover between some of the pure sciences and some of the applied sciences in trying to heal and trying to help people live longer and to replace damaged organs and so forth, so we need this science to progress.
This amendment would restrict the work of the Department of Energy, which is a basic science department, and its Office of Science, which is the Nation's largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences.
This amendment would impact work both for the Basic Energy Sciences division and the Biological and Environmental Sciences division. Sometimes these sciences cross over as we become smarter and more able to heal. With supercomputing, we are now going to be moving into an age way beyond where the 20th century was, and we don't want to harm that research.
The Basic Energy Sciences division supports fundamental research to understand, predict, and ultimately control matter and energy at the electronic, atomic, and molecular levels in order to provide the foundations of new energy technologies, which, of course, we are all balls of energy in one way or another.
With supercomputing, we are now going so far beyond where science in the last century went in terms of understanding how we function and how our world functions. For example, within the basic energy sciences, they conduct biosciences and photosynthetic system studies to modify a protein to better understand its function.
This work is deep into high science. This is not producing cattle for market. This is something very different.
The mission of the Biological and Environmental Sciences Research division is to support transformative science to achieve a predictive understanding of complex biological, Earth, and environmental systems, even trying to understand the reaction inside the human body of the biochemical reactions of a nerve sheath, which requires the help of supercomputers.
Understanding proteins, which is a subdivision of understanding how all matter functions, is fundamental to understanding biology.
The unintended consequences of this amendment are widespread and could cripple our Nation's ability to make breakthroughs in biology, bioenergy, decarbonization of the food industry, and human health.
Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. I would love to work with the gentleman on trying to meet the challenge my colleague is trying to solve, but this is not the way to do it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I would be more than happy to come to those farmers' farms. I serve on the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. I have farmers in my district that raise cattle. I want to find ways to reuse manure for soil complements and energy. We have other farmers here in this Chamber who care about this very much. The gentleman should know that he has an ally on this side of the aisle.
I just don't want to diminish the high science in the study of proteins that is so valuable to us as a country. Please know, at least this Member doesn't want to do anything to hurt your industry; we only want to help you. We don't want imported meat.
I am very unhappy China owns Smithfield's at this point. I want American producers to succeed, so just know you found a friend, not with this amendment, but with your desire to promote American agriculture in the animal industry.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chair, first, let me say that I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, but I understand the gentlewoman's desire to protect the jobs of people in the State that she is sworn to represent. I respect that very much.
Southern Ohio has had a lot of transition in the energy industry, and we understand what it means when you lose jobs. We have a fossil fuel energy research lab in the State of Pennsylvania that actually is looking at products like coal and seeing if, in fact, there aren't rare earths in there that are worth more per ton than traditional mining. I just mention that.
I sadly have to rise in opposition to her amendment because it would essentially prohibit funds to implement the Industrial Decarbonization Roadmap published by the Department of Energy in fiscal year 2022. The purpose of the roadmap is to develop a strategic approach to decarbonizing the Nation's industrial sector.
I come from a major industrial area. I can't tell you how many funerals I have been to, including my own brother's, of people who worked in industry. His situation was as a mechanic on heavy duty equipment, garbage trucks, fire trucks, and police cars, working in garages where the people ingested the fumes.
George Tucker, who was the head of our Local 7 unit in that garage, had a double cancer. He suffered for almost two decades.
Believe me, these are horrendous illnesses that come from working in unsafe conditions.
The purpose of the roadmap is to develop a strategic approach to decarbonizing the Nation's industrial sector, which we need, while simultaneously creating good-paying jobs for American workers, spurring economic growth, developing U.S. leadership in new technologies, and creating a cleaner, more equitable future for all Americans.
For a number of our mechanics, whether they are repairing airplanes or whether they are working in extractive industries, the conditions that they work under are really tragic.
One of the interesting things to look at is, in the different States that we live in, if you look at the occupational safety and health bills that come in the form of healthcare, the money that it costs to take care of sick people who have had to work in these industries, that is not our job in this account, but I can guarantee you, we hemorrhage money because of the illnesses of people across this country.
This roadmap focused on proven steps for energy technology innovation, advancing early stage research and development, investing in multiple industrial process strategies, scaling through demonstrations, and integrating solutions from that.
Particularly with what is happening to air quality because of the climate crisis, our efforts are even more needed to make the industrial sector more efficient, to position it to be a global leader in innovation as well as clean air and clean circumstances that people work in and to be competitive in the future global clean energy economy.
We really are transitioning to a different world. It will be a healthier one. I really don't want to go back to the 20th century and what these individuals and their families have had to live through. It is really ugly.
While it is clear that we need an all-of-the-above energy strategy that taps domestic oil and gas and invests in clean energy, we must also continue to promote energy innovation in all sectors of our economy. It is just intelligent. It is just a wise thing to do for the country.
The transition will be difficult, and we know that, because people lose jobs and technologies go out of date, but some that come on are just ingenious. America is a country of invention, and I believe that we will work our way forward in this new challenge to decarbonize our Nation's industrial sector, create good-paying jobs, spur economic growth, create a cleaner future for all Americans, and lead the world in these new technologies.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment because it would prohibit the National Nuclear Security Administration from halting construction on the HE Synthesis, Formulation and Production facility at the Pantex plant in Texas.
The FY25 bill does provide $20 million to proceed with activities, so there is funding in the bill. I would ask the gentleman to go back and look and see if that doesn't at least move the project forward. I have long been a champion of ensuring that our country maintains a safe, secure, and credible nuclear deterrent while also addressing the threat of nuclear proliferation and terrorism. We have to do both.
However, as I have said, I continue to be troubled by the unsustainable spending in the Department of Energy's weapons program. The National Nuclear Security Administration needs to improve its program and project management given that more than half of its projects are over cost or behind schedule. I am going to repeat that. Over half of its projects are over cost or behind schedule. There is a problem there. Pantex isn't a complete victim because there is money in the bill for
the facility. However, they have a problem over there, and they need to figure out what can be done to move these programs forward more quickly.
Importantly, we must also face the realities of defense funding gaps. I am on the Defense Subcommittee, as well. We have to begin making important decisions to prioritize within these programs. As one step in the prioritization process, the National Nuclear Security Administration proposed pausing construction of this facility to focus resources on higher priority items, which we have asked them to do, necessary for nuclear weapons modernization efforts.
I would say to the gentleman, one of the things he might want to consider is to talk to some of the folks here who promote these weapons systems, but then the NNSA can't build them fast enough, so we have to be disciplined in the guidance that we give them.
Only through strategic prioritization can the programs achieve success in meeting the needs of stockpile requirements and maintaining our Nation's nuclear deterrent. We should not prohibit the NNSA from pausing certain activities, especially since those issues will be resolved through conferencing funding levels.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I have some sense of what is happening in Florida. I live along the Great Lakes, and I see what is happening with our shorelines and the changing climate conditions that are impacting life.
This amendment would prohibit funds for the Army Corps of Engineers to implement or enforce guidance from 1996 called approval of perpetual beach storm damage reduction easement, underline the word ``easement,'' as a standard estate.
What that means is if the government is going to be involved, a private owner has to give them permission to have this easement, to go in and do work. That has to be really hard in Florida because of what is happening along all of your coasts.
While this might sound like a lot of jargon, it is actually an attempt to have some areas of the country treated differently than other areas.
Beach renourishment is an important function. The Army Corps of Engineers plays a major role in that, and it includes the adding of sediment onto or directly adjacent to an eroding beach. The Army Corps of Engineers generally requires that real estate easements are granted when performing work, which makes sense because taxpayers are footing the bill for these improvements that the Corps installs.
Further, it seems particularly of interest to taxpayers that if our taxpayer dollars are improving private property, then there should be an easement provided. In this case, that wasn't required in the past, but the Army Corps of Engineers realized it wasn't following standard procedures and decided to implement that going forward.
I also realize that a sudden change in policy can have impacts on local communities. I support efforts to ensure
that there is adequate time to plan for and adjust to changes in policy. I expect that the final Water Resources Development Act, which is not our job, will address this issue in a way that reduces the negative impacts on local communities while ensuring consistency in implementing the laws and regulations of this country, especially when it comes to projects funded with taxpayer dollars.
However, this amendment is not that balanced approach. This matter should be addressed by the appropriate authorizing committee.
For these reasons, I cannot support this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it, though I can certainly share the gentlewoman's concern about what is happening on all Florida coasts. The ecosystem is changing greatly, and we are going to have to, as a country, figure out how to handle our coasts.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment because it prohibits funds provided by this act from closing campgrounds or parks operated by the Army Corps of Engineers located at or around Lake Sidney Lanier, Georgia.
I can certainly understand the strong interest in preventing the Corps from closing campgrounds and parks in a particular area. I am trying to think if we have any around me. I don't think so. I probably should get them to do some in our area.
The Army Corps of Engineers is one of the Nation's leading Federal providers of outdoor recreation, so you indeed are fortunate. Its recreation sites receive 262 million visitors each year and include more than 400 lake and river projects in 43 States.
Unfortunately, the Army Corps of Engineers recreation funding has been--guess what?--declining in recent years. We know they have to make decisions.
I support the notion that we do not want the Corps to begin closing recreation sites due to lack of funding. However, this is an issue that affects hundreds of sites across dozens of States.
As I said, personally, I don't have a dog in the fight. I do not believe we should begin the practice of using funding prohibitions to carve out special designations but instead should urge and will urge the Corps to develop a comprehensive and fair solution to address the challenge of funding the Corps recreation sites.
For this reason, I oppose the amendment at this time, but I look forward to working with the gentleman and my colleagues to develop a solution to the larger problem. Hopefully, through that, the gentleman's site could be benefited.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment which would prohibit the use of funds for the consideration of the social cost of greenhouse gases in the development and implementation of budgets, Federal procurement processes, and environmental reviews.
As I have said, it is undeniable that we are witnessing growing weather events stemming from climate change occurring in real time before our very eyes. During 2023, there were 28 separate billion- dollar weather events and climate disasters, costing over $92 billion. There have already been 15 confirmed billion-dollar weather and climate disasters so far this year. In fact, I am sure the gentleman can check with his constituents, but people's home insurance is going up, and there are many places in the country where insurance is no longer offered. The cost of what is happening is rising.
We do not have the luxury to pretend that climate change isn't impacting us or that our actions aren't causing it. We need to understand what is happening to people across this Nation. We just heard from a Member from Florida in terms of requesting funding for beach replenishment in a place where the water is rising and sloshing over the edges of Florida on all coasts.
Tell American citizens who have lost businesses, homes, and loved ones or have lived in structures that have collapsed or disappeared from hurricanes, wildfires, and other recent natural disasters, that there are no costs from climate change. That is wrong.
It is already past time for aggressive action to address climate change and its impacts. It is critical for us to analyze and account for the potential impacts of government actions on the climate, and it is just as important to use that information for positive actions to help heal.
The truth is that climate change is having catastrophic social and economic impacts here and across the globe, and they are real. Pretending that climate change doesn't exist won't make it go away.
Madam Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this harmful amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment which prohibits funding for the American Climate Corps.
I have long been a champion of engaging young people in the climate corps to teach practical skills, to get them out of their narrow worlds, and to provide more open opportunities as happened many years ago with the Works Progress Administration.
The whole intent of the climate corps is to create capable people and give
them skills to move into ultimately middle-class jobs focused on weatherizing homes in this country, installing solar and other energy infrastructure. Hopefully, we will get some mechanical engineers out of that and some water engineers, hydraulic engineers. To mitigate coastal erosion, maybe we will get some Army Corps of Engineers enlistees. To prevent fires and flooding--you can't go out West and not have an energy company tell you that they are short on people who can climb the poles and try to make repairs after the wildfires out there.
The Coast Guard needs individuals to enlist. We also need people to construct and maintain public trails and more, all these wonderful metro parks we have and national parks. This will be a great experience for America's young adults.
From the West to the Great Plains to the coasts and the Great Lakes, we are witnessing the wreckage brought about by a changing climate whose ferocity knows no bounds.
We just heard from a Member from Florida about beach replenishment. How about putting some of these folks that would be in the climate corps to participate in that effort, if it can be funded.
Our success in tackling climate change will require bold, innovative strategies commensurate with the scope of the threats we have and the younger generation coming up behind us to provide that opportunity for them to gain the skills.
Last year, President Biden announced the American Climate Corps to train a band of young people in high-demand skills for jobs in the clean energy economy.
The programs will give a new generation of Americans the skills necessary to access good-paying jobs that are aligned with high-quality employment opportunities after they complete their training or service program.
We must continue to invest in the American workforce of the future. What a wonderful way to give the young people who would be moving forward in this an opportunity to help repair and build forward their Nation.
Madam Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
Madam Chair, this amendment would prohibit funds for the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases.
I don't know where the gentleman lives, but I live in an area where we have very ozone-heavy industrial zones. We have major neighborhoods that are oxygen short. We have areas where methane belches out of old landfills and dumps. We are not the only place in America that has these places, and this amendment would prohibit funds for the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases.
We are involved in a big tree planting project in our area right now, 10,000 trees to try to replace the old ones that are over 100 years old and try to bring oxygen into oxygen-short areas.
It is very clear that in urban areas coast to coast, there are places that are not healthy to live, and I don't think the countryside should be a dumping ground for waste from industry or any other place, but that has happened in many States in our Union.
The work that is being done by the department is crucial to making sure that the government accounts for the potential impacts of government actions on climate.
I have to say this, and it doesn't relate to gases, but back in the eighties we ruined the freshwater lake of Erie, and we have been cleaning it up ever since. What happened?
The Clean Water Act was passed, and you couldn't dump DDT into the water anymore. We had only two bald eagles left on Lake Erie. Today, we have given rebirth to the American bald eagle population, and they have even flown over to Cleveland and are multiplying now over there.
So we have seen the results of stupidity and ignorance in the past, and we don't intend to be ignorant in the 21st century.
It is critical to analyze and account for the potential impacts of private as well as governmental actions on climate, and it is important to use that information to better ourselves. I wish we had an answer in the Great Lakes right now for dissolved reactive phosphorus. We don't. However, if we are not smart, the greatest freshwater legacy in the world will be ruined for humanity, and that is not acceptable.
There is an old expression: Don't try to fool Mother Nature. I say: Don't ignore Mother Nature when she is telling you something is going wrong.
Mr. Chair, this is one such moment in American history. We can't pretend that the impact of human activity on planet Earth is negligible. There are billions of us now, and there is a draw on Mother Earth, and we have to understand her and hear her.
We must robustly meet the needs of the future and not flounder in the past.
Madam Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this harmful amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman from Connecticut, and I move to strike the last word.
Madam Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Ogles
Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
This amendment prohibits the use of funds for the Department of Energy's Office of Science's Scientific Workforce Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.
This bill already includes harmful riders that show Republicans are not interested in bills that can gain bipartisan support and become law.
The underlying bill includes a provision that prohibits funds related to advancing racial equity and supporting underserved communities--I represent some of those--and related to diversity, equity, and inclusion and accessibility in the Federal workforce.
In addition, the bill includes a provision that prohibits any activities related to critical race theory that, as we heard during markups last year, none of my Republican colleagues could even define.
How many times do my Republican colleagues need to emphasize that they do not like diversity, equity, and inclusion?
I would encourage my friend to go to a website and look up Admiral William McRaven's wonderful, wonderful, speech to a graduating class of the Naval Academy called ``Make Your Bed.'' What was interesting about it is that as a former SEAL, he talked about who actually in his SEAL training were the guys who actually won?
They were the guys who weren't the tallest, and they weren't the biggest, but they were a squad of sort of people who weren't as tall, they weren't as big, but their fierce spirit drove them to victory. I would urge the gentleman to look at that film, and then come back and consider whether he should ever offer an amendment like this again.
I really do not understand why these provisions are necessary on an Energy and Water bill, and I would hope that my colleagues can stop targeting those who may be different from themselves and embrace acceptance or at least tolerance of others. That is the greatness of America.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The Department of Energy is charged with implementing congressionally directed energy efficiency standards.
I will tell you, Madam Chair, in our home, efficiency standards have made hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of dollars of difference in savings, certainly in the area of the water heater and the refrigerator.
In accordance with the statute, the Department of Energy has published regulations in the code of Federal regulations for more than 60 categories of appliance and equipment types. The Department of Energy drafts the efficiency regulations with the full participation of equipment manufacturers and the public at large. The process includes thorough consideration of all comments and concerns.
These actions result in direct energy savings for American consumers. Look at all the little postcards you get in the mail making unsolicited offers. I got one yesterday for windows. I know we are not talking about windows here, but the difference between different window types and how much energy you can save, consumers look at that.
We have to work toward improving the reliability and performance across household appliances and commercial and industrial equipment.
Efficiency standards are not bans, and they do not impact existing appliances that Americans have purchased.
However, I think it is safe to say that virtually all Americans, let alone all the people in this room, have benefited from these types of efficiency standards over the course of their lifetimes, and I bet the gentleman's household has, as well.
Again, these actions are required by congressional direction.
Collectively, the Biden administration's past and planned energy efficiency actions will save Americans $1 trillion. That is at the household level.
That will save the average family at least $100 a year through lower utility bills. That amount may not be a lot to some people, but it is a great deal of money to a lot of people.
The Department of Energy estimates that this specific rule would save Americans $44 million in annual operating costs. It will make us smarter and better as a country.
If Congress does not like these standards, that should be addressed by new laws through the Energy and Commerce Committee, not through funding prohibitions.
With respect to the proposed energy efficiency standards for automatic commercial ice makers, I urge my colleagues with concerns to participate fully in the rulemaking process. That is the appropriate response to a proposed rule that Members oppose.
Congress has vested the Department of Energy with the authority to promulgate these rules. They listen to the American people and let us fully participate in that process.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Madam Chair, as I have mentioned on other amendments, the Department of Energy is charged with implementing congressionally directed energy efficiency standards. In accordance with the statute, the Department has published regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations for more than 60 categories of appliance and equipment types. The Department of Energy drafts the energy efficiency regulations with the full participation of equipment manufacturers and the public at large.
The results are energy savings for the buyer of the equipment. I have experienced that in my own house, and now that the gentleman is buying an appliance for his house, my colleague is going to experience those savings, too. The gentleman ought to add them up. It makes a difference.
Efficiency standards are not bans, and they do not impact existing appliances in Americans' homes. I think it is safe to assume that virtually all Americans have benefited from these types of efficiency standards over the course of their lifetimes. Also, our environment has benefited.
These actions are required by congressional direction. Laws were passed asking the Department of Energy to do this, and we know that these efficiency standards will save our people over a trillion dollars. That isn't chicken feed. It will save the average family well over $100 a year through lower utility bills.
The Department of Energy estimates that this specific rule would slash household utility costs by over $7 billion annually and could save consumers $1,800 on their energy bills over the life of the appliance.
That helps pay for the appliance. It helps consumers save money for something else they can buy.
If Congress does not like these standards, Members should address it with new laws through the Energy and Commerce Committee, not through funding prohibitions, as the gentleman suggests. Stopping the Department of Energy from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing energy efficiency standards will only create uncertainty for manufacturers and consumers.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment creates a funding prohibition related to the Delaware River Basin Commission.
The Delaware River Basin Commission is a Federal-interstate compact agency charged with managing the water resources of the Delaware River Basin on a regional basis without regard to political boundaries. As established by law, through the Delaware River Basin Compact that went into effect in 1961, the commission consists of the Army Corps of Engineers and four basin State Governors. Those States are Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York. The gentleman is from Pennsylvania, one of the four States.
The Corps of Engineers and these States work as equal partners for planning, development, and regulatory actions for the river basin. Given the commission's statutory mission, it analyzed the risks to water resources posed by high-volume hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling techniques. Through a public rulemaking process, the commission developed regulations on high-volume hydraulic fracturing in rock formations within the Delaware River Basin.
I do not pretend to be an expert on the Delaware River Basin. I trust what these four States have worked on together.
As a reminder, the commission consists of the Governors of the four basin States, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, and the North Atlantic Division commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
It does not strike me as a proper role for Congress, particularly through an appropriations rider, to overrule regional and local governments on this complex matter.
While the commission's work could be further discussed, I am also concerned that this implicates funding provided to the Delaware River Basin Commission as community project funding on behalf of one Member of this body.
Madam Chair, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against this
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding, and I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
I say to the gentleman who is offering it, I have a lot of respect for the State of Pennsylvania because, like Ohio, you manufacture things. You make things happen in America.
Right now, in the vehicular sector, especially in new electric drivetrains, the leading nation in the world for that is not the United States of America. The leading nation is China, and to a great degree, if you look at the figures. I don't have them here with me on the floor, but what China has done in other sectors is it manufactures over what the market needs.
Let's take steel, for example. Pennsylvania used to be a great steelmaking State, and it still has shreds of that left. China manufactured four times what the world needs and then it dumped them. It does the same in pharmaceuticals.
We understand what they are going to do next: cars. The cars they are manufacturing, millions of them, much more than this country, they are going to dump them here too because that is what is happening inside the world of global trade in the automotive sector.
I oppose the gentleman's amendment because I want America to be able to compete and to have all the componentry here, including the batteries, in order to move our population. Hybrids are selling. I don't think the all-electric vehicle is as popular. He is correct. There were subsidies provided for that, but we are building a supply chain in the automotive sector, and we could lose it. We could definitely lose it because our trade laws are weak.
We are an open country. Other places are not. The Chinese can manufacture because they have billions of hands, really, to work with. It is a much greater population, and they will strategically target. I would just ask the gentleman to take a look at that.
The funding in this bill includes, with the people applying, $19 billion in active applications for loans, and there is also the administration of another $19 billion in loans that are either active or have conditional commitments.
Let me just go through a couple of them. There is a $2.5 billion loan that just closed in November to support 6,000 construction jobs and an estimated 5,100 permanent jobs at three newly constructed lithium-ion battery cell manufacturing facilities in Spring Hill, Tennessee, not that far from Pennsylvania and Ohio; also, Lansing, Michigan; and Lordstown in my home State of Ohio near the Pennsylvania border.
There is a $9.2 billion conditional commitment to finance the construction of three manufacturing plants to produce batteries. We are behind, even with all the money we put into research and everything in order to make batteries more efficient. The Ford Motor Company and their future Ford and Lincoln electric vehicles are estimated to support 5,000 construction jobs and 7,500 operation jobs in Kentucky and Tennessee once the plants are opened and running.
We just dedicated in my hometown to working with the Koreans, the South Koreans, a Mobis battery facility to serve the Jeep Gladiator, which is going to have a hybrid electric offering to the marketplace. This is all new.
From automotive America, I cannot accept the gentleman's amendment because we want to beat the Chinese, we want to be the best, and we have to have the help of the government in that because we have to move these technologies faster.
There was an $850 million loan commitment announced in June of this year to help finance the construction of KORE Power, an advanced battery cell manufacturing facility in Buckeye, Arizona, to support up to 700 construction jobs and 1,250 operation jobs once the facilities are open.
In all of our labs at the Department of Energy, we are trying to push battery technology to a level never seen before. This takes time, but it is happening. Believe me, there are other countries that are ahead of us. We are in a catch-up mode, and we are in a predumping mode.
I completely disagree with the gentleman's amendment and urge a vote against it.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. I obviously rise in opposition to this amendment.
If you want to increase fraud and hinder the ability of the Federal Government to quickly and efficiently interact with private businesses, then, by all means, vote for this gentleman's amendment.
However, I will vote against it because we must continue to invest in the manufacturing prowess of this country.
We have to catch up. So many of our jobs were outsourced to penny- wage environments in very undemocratic countries, and we lost manufacturing in small towns and big cities across America. So we are in a catch-up mode right now to domestic onshoring and reshoring of vital economic activities, including the manufacturing of vehicles that all of us use to get to work and to conduct the business of this country.
I urge my colleagues to vote for America against this misguided amendment.
Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chair, in terms of the Great Lakes, for all the States it covers and with the enormous interests of the Great Lakes region, one that we share with Canada, we move into some really complex developmental questions in a region that has lost so many jobs.
I see what the gentleman's point is, but I don't agree with him. I stand up in support of all the commissions. I invite the gentleman to travel to these regions and see and meet with the co-chairs of these panels around our country.
This is off the subject in a way, but the gentleman's region was heavily impacted by what happened in East Palestine. I haven't seen the gentleman say anything on the floor in support of the mayor of that town or the people of that town.
If that had happened in my town, I would have been doing everything in my power to try to move the people out of that region who didn't want to stay there anymore and build them a better community in which to live and find the funds to do that, working with the railroads. I don't see the gentleman addressing issues of concern in his own region.
By the way, the part of Pennsylvania that drains into Lake Erie is covered by the Great Lakes Authority, so the gentleman is actually speaking against the interests of his own State on this amendment and a prior one. That is really shocking to me.
Mr. Chair, I don't support the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chair, this amendment prevents funds from being used to transfer or delegate control or maintenance responsibility of the Lower Yellowstone fish bypass channel to any non-Federal entity.
Essentially, the gentleman wants the Corps and Bureau of Reclamation to continue paying for this after over 100 years. If folks don't agree with the authorities, laws, and policies of the Bureau of Reclamation, then this is the type of matter that should be properly
vetted through the regular order of committees of jurisdiction in this House, not through a funding prohibition.
For these reasons, I cannot support this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote against it, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chair, the first thing I would like to say to the gentleman from Texas is that our country is probably going to have 400 million people by 2050, and we are going to have to make some changes to accommodate them. We may not agree on what those are, but we can't live in 1950. It just simply isn't that Nation anymore.
This amendment prohibits funds for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission order No. 1920. That is a transmission and cost allocation rule that requires the Nation's transmission providers to plan for the transmission we know we will need in the future.
I live in a region that was wiped out back in about the early 2000s. What happened was one energy company goofed and turned off a switch, and it blacked out the entire Midwest, Northeast, and Canada, costing us $9 billion in economic activity and nine lives that were lost.
Now, it was upsetting that the grid was so integrated that we couldn't save the Ohioans that were damaged in that situation. I felt the transmission was old back then, and I know it is old now.
The FERC order 1920 is a transmission and cost allocation rule that requires the Nation's providers, the transmission providers, to plan for the transmission we know we will use in the future. Frankly, we need it right now.
This rule adopts specific requirements addressing how transmission providers must conduct long-term planning for regional transmission facilities and determine how to pay for them so that the needed transmission is built.
This rule was the first time in more than a decade that FERC has addressed the regional transmission policy. Boy, can we be a witness to that in the Midwest. We know when it wasn't there. We could see the lines just sag when the outage occurred.
To maintain a reliable electric grid and ensure that we meet our growing clean energy demands, studies show we
may need to expand transmission by 60 percent by 2030. A resilient and reliable energy grid is also critical in confronting extreme weather and climate events that will only increase in severity. We see them every month. It is clear that we need to improve how our country plans, pays for, and builds the electric grid of the future.
Finally, this rule was developed and voted on by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which is an independent agency that regulates the interstate transmission of electricity, natural gas, and so on.
The final rule reflected more than 15,000 pages of comments from nearly 200 stakeholders, the ones that could understand how to submit comments.
This rule is one step in the much larger, complex puzzle to ensure that we have a reliable and efficient electric grid as our Nation's energy needs change in the coming decades.
A lot of people around this country are producing on property now. They don't need to go up to the grid. Maybe if things happen on their property, they have to bring down power from the grid. That ability has to be there, too.
Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this harmful amendment and help us prepare for the future, for heaven's sake.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
America can't live in the past. We have to adapt to the new reality.
During 2023, just last year, there were 28 separate billion-dollar weather and climate disasters costing over $92 billion.
I say to my colleague from Texas, he has had some rough weather down there, too. Not just rough weather, but coming off the Gulf, those fierce incidents that occurred in Texas. I don't know how much it cost, but they are part of that $92 billion.
You have had some real energy problems down there with shutoffs and all. I don't know what it is like to live in Texas. I have visited there a couple of times. You can't deny reality.
I don't know what has happened to property insurance rates in Texas, but I can tell you what, every single bill that I get has gone up for our house insurance, the property insurance and so forth. Some places in Florida, they are not even selling insurance anymore. They can't get insurance on their property.
These incidents are severe, and there have already been 15 confirmed billion-dollar weather and climate disasters this year.
Let's look at reality. Tell the American citizens who lost businesses, homes, and loved ones from hurricanes, wildfires, and other natural disasters that there are no costs from climate change. Are you kidding?
We have to adapt to a new reality and help our people, not turn our backs on them. We must maintain American leadership also in the clean energy field because otherwise we cede it to China and to other places, and we are weakened by that as a country. We have to embrace the future reality.
Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this harmful amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Will the gentleman yield?
Texas has a lot of wind farms and so forth.
Are you saying none of them are any good?
Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The bill already cuts 43 percent in this account for energy efficiency and renewable energy. I don't really understand the gentleman from Texas, a lot of the things that he throws out there.
If you look at where agriculture is going in my part of the country, where it is going is John Deere is on track to make a 100 percent ethanol-powered tractor.
If I had said that to the gentleman 25 years ago, he would say: Well, I can't think about that. That can't happen.
Guess what? It is happening.
For the eight counties I represent, the rural parts of those counties, one-half of soybeans and corn go into making that fuel. We are very proud of it. We are very proud of it. It is renewable energy.
In terms of solar, you say: Why do you need this?
When solar first got started in my area by individual entrepreneurs-- okay, inventors--the Federal Government, the Department of Energy didn't even know about what they were doing. They took their technology to the Department of Energy. Now they laud what the people were doing.
Guess what their problem was. It was getting financing and getting help to bring their technology forward because they weren't a big company, and they didn't have any of those angel investors like Texas has.
Out where I live, the people have made it forward by their own creativity and hard work.
We flew the first biofuel F-16 out of our National Guard base in Ohio. It didn't come out of Texas. It didn't come out of Tucson, it came out of our area because of the creativity our people.
Where this Department comes in and where this program comes in is for the Americans who are out there today who are inventing something new and need a little bit of help in order to get it across the finish line. I want to help them, and I am looking toward advances in biofuels, in hydrogen, and hydrogen fuel cells. Yes, in solar. I am not against solar. Wind energy, you have more of that. We have quite a bit in Ohio now, too. Geothermal, thermal heat recovery, advanced manufacturing efficiencies, we are seeing those every day. Weatherization and building materials, I can't get into all of that in the brief time I have.
It is a revolution, and it is exciting. It is exciting to be a part of America's future.
Our dominance in the solar industry, if we can get there, could result in an up to $1.3 trillion market and 500,000 jobs. We are up to about 200,000 jobs right now in that field, and we need more people to specialize in the electricity of solar.
We can choose to give up American leadership in these technologies by cutting further innovations, or we can embrace the future of the global energy economy, and that is what I want to do.
Therefore, Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' against this harmful amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment raises serious constitutional issues and may amount to an unconstitutional bill of attainder.
This is not the way to handle policy disputes with Secretary Granholm, who is a very highly qualified, dedicated public servant.
I have never actually heard this. These are serious charges, and this amendment prioritizes legislative theater over the American people and has no chance of becoming law.
Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this harmful amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fleischmann).
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, the gentlewoman's amendment is another example of the majority proposing language that is not germane to an energy bill. It is yet an additional illustration of how Republicans are not interested in bills that can gain bipartisan support and become law.
Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this harmful amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment and say that I can still recall in this country when the first Arab oil embargo occurred in the late 1970s, and this country was shut down because we were not energy independent inside our borders. When they chose to close the spigot, unemployment in my area shot up to nearly 20 percent.
During this war in Ukraine that we are experiencing now, what does Russia do? It tries to divert its oil shipments here and many other places around the world in order to use that power to achieve its political ends.
Energy is vital, and it can be used as a weapon. We have to be energy independent inside these borders. The Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations was established in order to scale up emerging technologies. We cannot just rely on the past. This is an agile country. We have to build the future.
This office focuses on advanced nuclear, for example. It focuses on carbon capture and energy improvements, both in rural or remote areas as well as the reclaiming of former mine lands. We are looking at smaller nuclear reactors in some of those places, industrial demonstrations, working with the steel industry. They have made a revolution in energy savings. It is exciting to see.
Their strategy includes energy storage demonstrations, regional clean hydrogen hubs, which I hope someday to get in my area because I so believe in hydrogen fuel cells, but we have to push the technology further than it is and others yet to be invented, certainly in the thermal energy recapture field.
Mr. Chair, we must continue to invest in an all-of-the-above strategy to make this country energy independent in perpetuity. We cannot lose our momentum, and, unfortunately, I believe
your amendment does exactly that, loses momentum. It helps to throttle scientific innovation, which is what the Department of Energy has in all of our 17 labs, everything that is being done. The average business that is out there can't do some of what the Department of Energy can help them do with a supercomputing capacity and with its ability to deal with rare minerals and so forth.
The amendment may be well-intentioned in the offering, but I have to oppose it, however, because I really think it drives America backward, and that is not where we need to be at this moment in history.
Mr. Chair, I urge Members to vote against this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chair, this amendment raises serious constitutional issues and may amount to an unconstitutional bill of attainder. This is not the way to handle policy disputes with Jigar Shah, director of the Department of Energy's Loan Programs Office. The amendment prioritizes legislative theater again over the American people, and it has no chance of becoming law.
Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this harmful amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chair, I claim the time opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
I rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment. It transfers $10 million to the grid deployment account from the energy efficiency and renewable energy account for the purposes to enhance the security of existing electrical transformers from cyber threats and from physical attacks from individuals.
While I very much support the intent behind this amendment to enhance the security of existing electrical transformers from cyber threats and physical attacks, I cannot support the source of the funds for the amendment, the energy and efficiency and renewable energy accounts, which have already been cut by 43 percent.
Further cutting these programs, even for noble purposes, is not in our Nation's interest. We can choose to give up American leadership in these technologies by cutting further innovation, or we can embrace the future of the global energy economy on all levels.
I point out that the Department of Energy's work to support and secure the transformer supply chain spans across the Office of Electricity, Grid Deployment, and Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response with other programs also contributing.
I hope the gentleman can continue to work toward his objective, but we will oppose this particular amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.