Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. I move to strike the last word.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I am quite reluctant to shift funds from the weapons accounts to other purposes within the Department. But I rise in support of this gentleman's amendment. Congressman Perlmutter of Colorado has made a reasonable proposal here. I agree with his interest in advancing our work in renewable energy technologies. In working with the Department, we also know the incredible cost overruns that we see occur year after year after year in these nuclear weapons accounts. I think that the gentleman's amendment is a modest amendment. I think it signals movement in the proper direction for our country. It also says to those managing our nuclear weapons accounts that we're paying attention to the fact that you probably wasted more money and have not done oversight on your contracts more than almost any other department in the Government of the United States. The need for investment in new energy technologies is important to the country. I think the gentleman has done something that I think moves us down the road of new technology and takes a very modest amount from the weapons accounts, and my own position generally supports the administration's efforts not to touch the weapons accounts unless we do so within the context of nuclear arms reduction negotiations. But the amount of funds that you are transferring, I think, is very, very reasonable, and therefore I wish to support you in your amendment, and I would urge my colleagues to support the Perlmutter amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. I move to strike the last word.

Ms. KAPTUR. I just want to briefly extend support to the Connolly amendment for the same reason as in the prior amendment offered by Mr. Perlmutter. And though I generally support nuclear security issues in the context of arms reduction talks, this is a modest amendment. It is a $15.5 million transfer from the weapons account, where we have seen huge cost overruns. I think it's important to send a little smoke signal their way that we're paying attention and to support the cause of renewable energy in the Connolly amendment. I would urge my colleagues to support it and yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I will say he has been very consistent today. But if we get off the subject of this bill just for a second and we think about every single chamber of commerce that talks to us, every single economic growth team that exists around this country, what do they tell us? They tell us we need to invest in STEM--science, technology, engineering, and math-- because America is falling behind. In fact, in the immigration debate, what are they asking us for? They're asking us for more visas to bring in people from other countries who have all the requisite skills that we don't have, where we can't provide enough scientists, enough engineers, enough specialists to the marketplace for the companies that want to surge ahead. So for the gentleman to be suggesting that we reduce our science accounts even more flies in the face of reality. The science account is $223 million below this year's level and $500 million below the budget request. Innovation is an area where we as a Nation should be leading, and reducing investment in basic science risks world leadership. We are already at the edge. Investment from publicly funded research yields a 20 percent to 67 percent return. With that kind of return, we should be investing more in science so that we produce the requisite talent that we need to meet the needs of the future, not the past. We can't ride on past laurels. We have to be producing the new knowledge, new innovation that can produce answers for us, certainly in the fields of energy where America is truly in deep deficit and having to import so many of the resources that propel this economy forward. I can't imagine why the gentleman is proposing this. But in the areas of science, engineering, math, and technology, we have to measure up. If you look at a nation like China, with billions of people producing all those engineers, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that we better open our eyes to what we need to do here at home. All you have to do is look at our negative energy accounts to understand that we're falling behind and that these investments in science are for the sake of the Nation and the future. Daniel Webster's quote up there on the wall tells us to develop the resources of our land and calls us forth to do something really great in our time and generation. To not invest in science, to not invest in the future really takes America backwards. So I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment, would urge my colleagues to do so, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. And I listened to the gentleman's arguments, and I just want to point something out. The gentleman is saying that private industry will do this in any case. I have been very engaged in our part of the country with the local companies and inventors that are trying to lead America into the future. And what's interesting about the start of some of these new technologies is, many of these inventors don't have the deep pockets of huge multinational corporations. And when smaller, high-tech companies start out, maybe these inventors have 10, 20, 30 patents to their name, sometimes they launch from a cooperative effort with a university base. They don't have the funds to do the kind of basic research that's necessary to move their technology forward. They need the help of entities like the Department of Energy. And so it just doesn't happen by magic that one moves a technology forward. Most businesses don't have the interest or the funding to put into this direct research, basic research. So, for example, with solar, which is something our region of the country knows quite a bit about because it spun off of the glass industry, just getting seven layers of material to adhere takes incredible effort. If you are a small inventor, if you are a smaller company, I defy you to roll steel so thin, and then find adherents to go with it that will hold electrical charges, and then to invent the electrical materials that go through there. And by golly, over the last 30 years, they have done it. They have brought the cost of panels down to a competitive rate. Where we are now is storage capacity, moving the electricity from those plates to storage systems that will actually be more efficient, and then onto the grid. So please don't say that the work that they go through, the Americans who really do invent our future, who often are blocked by the people that sit in this Chamber and can't even imagine what they are up against technologically, don't think that what they do doesn't matter. And while they're doing this, what do they face, just in the solar industry? The Chinese dumping 2 million panels globally and pushing down the price, a country that's a Communist country, whose economy is a Marxist market system, a Leninist market system. And we ask our individual inventors to compete with that, and we do nothing to help them out? By golly, I'd fight for these Americans any day of the year because I know the next generation will be more independent than today's generation because of what they are doing, and I will do anything in my power to help them. That is the role of the Government of the United States, to lift up those who are trying to make this country free again and separate us from those countries and those interests that don't share our political values. And so I want to be a champion for those who are out there fighting for the future. And they're not all big multinationals who have these deep pockets they can just reach into, but they're individual Americans who are taking what they've learned in their company. And they can't finance it alone. Banks won't necessarily do it because the technology isn't fully developed. They need a partnership. And we're the one partnership at the Federal level that can help lift their technology and bring it forward. I'm proud of them. And, sir, I oppose your amendment. I think it's a well-intentioned amendment. But you know what? It doesn't lead us forward, and it really doesn't help those inventors and those companies around this country who are leading us into the future. I ask the membership to oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, let me say that the gentleman's amendment takes a step in the right direction. It is a modest step, but one that signals a view towards the horizon that is ahead of us, and I rise in support of his very responsible amendment that would make an investment in our future and move to a more diversified energy portfolio. It does nick an account, our administrative account, which is a bit troubling, but it is not at the level that some of the prior amendments today did, so I support the gentleman's amendment. I thank him for all of the time he spent on the floor today waiting his turn. Talk about a gentleman of the House, you surely are. So I want to thank Congressman Swalwell for his leadership and for trying to take a step toward the future in offering his amendment today. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Swalwell amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. While the amendment is a modest one in terms of the funding in the account, which is over $400 million, I cannot support further cuts in this program. The budget already has cut $16 million from the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, and that means nuclear material that exists globally in places that we know we need to remove it. So even though the gentleman's amendment is well intended, I think that we can't predict the consequences of this in terms of what we face globally to remove this material. I think it's very important to recognize that there are some unfriendly actors on the face of this Earth. And we want to remove material as best as possible, working with others around the world, as the program indicates, to reduce global threats that might result from those who shouldn't have this material in the first place. So I don't think that this is moving us in the right direction globally. I don't really think it's necessary. I thank the gentleman for bringing it to the attention of the body, but I think that nonproliferation in general is $600 million below last year's activities when you compare it to past accounts. So I think that this is not in the best interest of the country and not in the best interest of national security. So I oppose the gentleman's amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank Congressman Hastings for working with us and obviously participating in these debates for the entire day today. He is such an able and well- intentioned Member. His brilliance continues to inspire all of us on many issues, including this one. I wanted to just say that I agree with the gentleman's intent in offering this amendment. And as I've said many times today, the allocation we were given as a subcommittee is simply insufficient to meet all of the needs that the Nation has certainly in this area of science. The gentleman is correct that there is a $223 million--which is not insignificant--reduction from 2013 levels. So as we look to the future, there is less emphasis on science. I agree with the gentleman's intent. I wish we could restore all those dollars this evening. I would also say that there's a constraint on us because we know that the President very much wants to engage in nuclear weapons reduction talks with other nations around the world, and I think it is important that he be able to negotiate from a position of strength. That is one of the reasons that the chairman and I are working so very hard to allow him to achieve the ultimate objective of nuclear arms reduction. So to take dollars from those accounts at this level really does create a bit of a pressure for us that would cause me to oppose the gentleman's amendment at this time. But I do so very reluctantly and with full understanding of what he is trying to achieve, and I want to thank him very much for waiting the entire day to offer this very, very important amendment that I hope some day to be able to support. I urge my colleagues to consider however they may wish to vote on this. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. In reclaiming my time, I would like to lend support to the amendment offered by my colleague from Illinois. His amendment would cut funding from the weapons account in the amount that was added to the President's budget request for the B61. In these tight fiscal times, all programs must find efficiencies, and the $23.7 million was the amount that the administration estimated could be achieved for this activity. So I want to thank the gentleman very much for his efforts and for waiting all day. We have to proceed in order. I know it's excruciatingly difficult for such an athlete, like yourself, with all that pent-up energy and drive, to have to wait until this late in the evening, but we thank you for the contribution you have made in many ways, including in offering this amendment tonight. I ask my colleagues to support his efforts, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. I rise to oppose the amendment of the gentleman from Georgia. This is a chart showing U.S. imports of oil since 1973, where America is more vulnerable in every succeeding decade. We know that if gas prices in this country go over $4 a gallon, we go into deep recession. We live at the edge every year, and we've seen what happens. So I repeat what I've said in prior debates today: either you live in the past or you attempt to live in the future and build a future. I think that the gentleman's amendment, though it might be well intentioned, is moving America backwards. We simply have to address the fact that we are not energy independent as a country, and the renewable energy accounts are part of that future. We must embrace it. We must move our Nation away from complete dependence on foreign sources of energy and stand on our own two feet here at home. I oppose the gentleman's amendment, ask my colleagues to do the same, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. I rise in opposition to the Broun amendment, and really find it somewhat incredible that, in the bill that the majority brought forward, the renewable energy accounts have been cut by over half, over 60 percent already. This gentleman proposes an amendment to cut it by an additional 1 percent. And that equals $9,826,370 to an account that has already just been drubbed. Now, I want to say something here. Here's a chart that shows America's trade deficit. And energy, imported energy, comprises the largest account. We haven't had a balanced trade deficit since the 1970s, when the job hemorrhage started in this country. And it gets worse every year. America's future depends on innovation. We can't continue to live like this. Every community you go to in this country, they say, will we have to move somewhere because my child can't find a job? Or gosh, I just had to get another job and I had my salary cut in half. It's pretty obvious what's been happening. The major category of trade deficit is energy imports, energy, because we are not self- sufficient in energy production in this country. Part of the answer lies in new energy systems, systems that even NASA has helped us to begin to invent, yes, in the solar field, yes, in new hydrogen technologies like cryogenic hydrogen, yes, in natural gas. Thank goodness, the Department invested in fossil fuel technologies. That's where the fracking technologies came from. It came from thinking about the future, not living in the past. So the gentleman's cutting even further into the bone. We've already cut to the bone, now you're sort of whacking the spine in half and saying, well, let's cut some more there. Well, either you live in the future or you live in the past. And I, sadly, view the gentleman's amendment as a retreat to the past. I want to live in an America that's a can-do nation, an America that invents new technologies. And literally, the renewable technologies are going to have to be there when the finite resources of carbon-based fuels aren't there anymore, because they are finite. They're finite globally. And I stand here also today for every single soldier in our country that's died in the line of duty trying to protect the sea lanes to bring that stuff in here because they're trying to help America hold it together while she isn't energy-independent here at home. So these investments in the future are vital to the future, if one is capable of thinking forward about what that future might look like. I've seen a technology, sir, that can take a thin filament invented by the best scientists this country has. They float it in a nitrogen bath and, from point of generation of power to point of use it's 100 percent energy-efficient, unlike the current transmission technologies that we have today, where we lose 25 to 80 percent of our power. There has to be a majority in here, 218, that are capable of thinking about living in the future and not just the past. I oppose the gentleman's amendment. I think that he's trying to be a good budgeteer, I guess, but in so doing, he cuts off the nose to spite his face. America deserves to have an energy future, and it won't happen with amendments like this one. So I oppose the gentleman's amendment, ask my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. KAPTUR. I move to strike the last word.

Mrs. KAPTUR

Mrs. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Let me say to the gentleman from California that I am sympathetic toward his efforts on the renewable energy activities at the Department of Energy as they are critical for America's energy future, and I'm torn as I listen to his arguments. I just wanted to demonstrate a chart here that shows the relative superiority of the United States in the nuclear weapons field, the largest total inventory in the world, with Russia right behind. We have a significant nuclear capacity, much greater than nations that follow: France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, North Korea. The United States has quite significant nuclear complexes, and we must maintain them, and we must provide security for them. I think that the President's negotiations with Russia provide us with a very important opportunity to cut the systems and to do so in a responsible way that continues our superiority and our security, while bringing down the possibilities of reducing these weapons globally. The gentleman's amendment would actually move funds--$335 million from our weapons accounts--and move them to energy efficiency and renewable energy, which is a move that I would like to support at a future date--the sooner, the better. I appreciate him offering the amendment. Though I agree with his intent, as I've said many times before, the allocation for this bill is simply insufficient, and we're robbing one account to try to put funds in another account. I must very reluctantly oppose the gentleman's amendment. I think he's moving in the right direction, and I think that this helps our Nation move in a more constructive direction for the future. We have a responsibility on the nuclear security front. Hopefully, with ongoing negotiations, we'll be able to make this move in the very near future. I want to thank him for his leadership in moving the country forward and showing us a new path. Let's hope that with the administration's engagement, we can move to that path sooner rather than later. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman's well- intentioned amendment and again reiterate that our budget is simply insufficient in our subcommittee to meet all of the needs of the country. What the gentleman is proposing is to take an additional $31 million out of the Department's administrative accounts and to shift them to renewable energy systems relating to dams and small dam construction. That is a very worthy objective. However, if you know anything about the Department of Energy, one of the challenges we face in the administrative accounts is getting them to manage their contracts in a way that properly oversees taxpayer dollar expenditures. That Department has had some of the worst cost overruns I have ever seen in my career in Congress, on the nuclear side and on the nonnuclear side. So when the gentleman wants to cut administrative costs, my worry is that we will not have the kind of rigor that the chairman and I have been trying to reinfuse in the Department to better manage the dollars that we allow them to spend. And so I think the gentleman's amendment runs a real risk of creating mismanagement there simply because they don't have the personnel to do the job. And so I think that your end purpose is a very, very worthy one. And, frankly, we have some small dams in Ohio that would benefit from the gentleman's amendment, but I have to come down on the side of rigor and proper administration by the Department in all of their accounts, and the amount of mismanagement and cost overruns in some of their programs is into the billions. The administrative accounts overall are only $187 million to manage a Department that is over $30 billion worth of expenditures and all kinds of contractors, all kinds of cleanup programs that stand on that thin reed of $187 million for nationwide contract administration and personnel administration. So I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I understand what he's trying to do, but we simply can't risk improper contract management in that Department at this time. I urge opposition to the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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