Marcy Kaptur

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. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. I would just like to reclaim a couple of seconds here and place on the record that, as to the Army Corps of Engineers, the gentleman is correct. If we look back to the years 2011 and 2012, the bills terminated or suspended over 300 projects across this country. That is not an insignificant number. That is a very significant number. It's one of the reasons that we weren't able to put in New START, because we've got so many other wounded and casualties standing in line, waiting for assistance across the country, including the communities you represent.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I seek to identify my side with the gentleman's remarks on the importance of the Asian carp issue to the freshwater lakes of our country and certainly to Lake Erie. He and I share that. The lake is neither Republican nor Democratic. It is the largest fishery in the entire Great Lakes system, which contains 20 percent of the world's fresh surface water, and Lake Erie actually has more fish than all of the other Great Lakes combined. Honestly, this Asian carp threat is truly a nightmare for those people and the multibillion-dollar industries--the maritime industry, our fisheries, our tourism centers. I especially appreciate the gentleman's desire to have a multiagency effort and more dispatch within the executive branch to deal with the possibility of these fish, these very destructive fish, coming in and destroying our perch, our walleye--our native fish. It is a very, very worrisome invasive species to our lakes.

Ms. KAPTUR. I wonder, for those that don't come from your part of the country, Congressman Garamendi, talk about what it's like to face that possibility of nonrepair of the facilities that you are discussing.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would say to Congressman Hastings that I rise with sympathy toward the situation you face at Hanford, but must oppose your amendment. The amendment essentially would cut funding from energy efficiency and renewable energy, specifically the weatherization program, which affects dozens and dozens of communities across this country, many of them very low income, as well as departmental administration, which has already been cut to the bone, to move money to Hanford. It is true that the communities that contributed to the Manhattan Project cannot be left with the remnants of that war effort. We have a moral obligation to clean up these sites. Without question, the bill is inadequate to meet the commitments to States and local communities faced with cleanup. However, we cannot take those dollars out of the hides of elderly people who might live in Newark, New Jersey, in the wintertime, or in Portland, Oregon, or places where they can't afford their energy bills, or we can't divert money from administration, which is already cut to such a low level at the Department in order to move dollars to Hanford. Hanford already receives over $2 billion a year--$2 billion. I wish my community received $2 billion. I wish your communities received $2 billion a year. Those dollars come from the River Protection program, over $1.2 billion, plus an additional $877 million, well over $2 billion a year. That's more than most communities represented by Members here can even imagine coming to their region of the country. The defense waste cleanup in Ohio is extraordinary. We don't get $2 billion a year. So to say to senior citizens across this country we are going to take it out of your weatherization program so you can't put plastic around your windows in the wintertime and try to retrofit your houses, or we are going to take it out of departmental administration where we risk accounting for the funds properly for all of these programs that the Department has to administer, including the cleanup, some of these contracts that we've had problems with in that Department, I simply can't support the manner in which the gentleman and the gentlelady have identified where they are taking the money from. So while I agree with their intent, as I've said many times, the allocation for this bill is $2.8 billion under last year and $4 billion under the administration's request and is simply insufficient. We can't keep picking the bones off the most needy parts of our country to try to divert additional dollars to efforts at Hanford that are spending well over $2 billion a year already. I would ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I reluctantly oppose the gentleman's amendment. But in being fair and looking at all the accounts, we simply can't keep picking from the bones of other programs at the Department. I ask my colleagues to vote against the Hastings amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to Representative Noem's amendment. I think that there is a worthy objective of providing freshwater to all parts of our country. We talked about that earlier today. The problem is her amendment takes funds from other accounts to try to move some of those dollars to rural America. Frankly, our fundamental problem is that this bill is $2.8 billion under what was being expended in this fiscal year of 2013, and it's $4 billion under the administration request. So what she's essentially doing is taking money from something else in order to move it to rural areas of the country. I represent some of those. They're very worthy. Some of them do receive funds through the Department of Agriculture. Some smaller communities also have associations with the Environmental Protection Agency. But to cut funds, to take money from the Renewable Energy account--$15 million from there--and from other water-related accounts and to cut departmental administration really is sort of picking off very scarce bones. And I have to oppose the amendment on that basis. The Renewable Energy accounts, which are America's future--they're a major part of our downpayment on the future--have been cut 60 percent. You are withdrawing additional funds from those accounts to try to move toward needed rural water needs. But, frankly, these accounts have been severely cut, and the gentlelady's amendment harms them more. We simply can't cut more from those accounts. I support more funding for the rebuilding of America's urban water systems, which are leaking all over this country. In fact, we just had a collapse in my home community. For some reason, a major intersection just imploded because the water systems underneath weren't properly attended to. This is happening from coast to coast. So our urban water systems are severely constricted. There are all kinds of problems there. And in parts of rural America, obviously we are still trying to extend lines, trying to clean water, trying not to pollute water anymore in order to make sure that citizens who live there and the livestock that is there has sufficient freshwater resources. So I identify with what you're trying to do, but not where you are taking the funds from. Those dollars simply can't be cut any further. So I have to oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition to the gentlelady's amendment. Perhaps we can work in other ways in the future, but the fundamental problem is the bill has been cut $2.8 billion, and some of that is coming from the dollars that would be available for rural water programs. So I strongly oppose the amendment, not because it isn't worthy, but simply because she's raiding other accounts that are cut, literally, to the bone. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Noem amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. In looking at our bill and looking at some of the accounts, especially for the energy and water accounts and the general provisions, there was an excellent article in this week's International Herald Tribune. It talks about sound investments. I will read portions of it very briefly here. It talks about how the rate of economic growth in Germany is surpassing our own just now, and the unemployment rate as a result has dropped to 5.3 percent, and falling further--much lower than in the United States. It investigates why that is the case. It talks quite a bit here about the German economy having made investments whose future benefits will far outweigh repayment costs. This bill and its accounts, essentially, should be doing that; but, unfortunately, it cuts back on some of the most significant job growth. The article goes on to say that the U.S. economy is still in doldrums. And that's because many of the needed workers and machines are now idle. If the country waits, it will need to bid them away from other tasks. Also, because of the sluggish economy, the materials required for the work are now relatively inexpensive. So this is really the time to encourage investment in our economy to lift the entire system. The article goes on to talk about the fact that in Germany there had been certain austerity backers, they call them, and it says: Now austerity backers urge--preposterously--that infrastructure repairs be postponed until government budgets are in balance. But would they also tell an indebted family to postpone fixing a leaky roof until it paid off all of its debts? Not only would the repair grow more costly with the delay, but the water damage would mount in the interim. Families should pay off debts, yes, but not in ways that actually increase their indebtedness in the longer term. I found this article particularly instructive as we move amendments to the floor and move this bill forward. In the article it says: Austerity advocates object that more deficit spending now will burden grandchildren with crushing debt. That might be true if the proposal were to build bigger houses and stage more lavish parties with borrowed money. But, in fact, the dollars were being invested in the nation in projects that were creating opportunity and infrastructure that would advance the worth of the nation in decades hence. So I think that we ought to think about this as we proceed title by title in this bill and ask ourselves the question why it is that many of the important accounts, such as the Corps of Engineers--and several of our speakers today have referenced those--has been cut by $104 million compared to this year's enacted level and falls far short of the investments that we need in one of the fundamentals in the country, and that is in water systems. Madam Chair, I will place this article in the Record from the International Herald Tribune. I also want to point out and place in the Record some of the severe cutbacks in this bill with more specificity: The Renewable Energy, Energy Reliability, and Efficiency account is $971 million less than the 2013 enacted level and $1.96 billion less than the President's request; The Department of Energy Office of Science is $223 million less than 2013's enacted level and $499.8 million less than the President's request; The Advanced Research Projects Agency is $215 million less than the 2013 enacted level and $329 million less than the President's request; The funding for environmental cleanup is $243 million less than the 2013 enacted level and $133 million less than the President's request; The Nuclear Nonproliferation account is $334 million less than the 2013 enacted level and $40 million less than the President's request; In terms of the Army Corps of Engineers, it is $104 million less than the 2013 enacted level; In the water resources projects within the Department of the Interior, there is a $104 million reduction less than the 2013 enacted level and $85 million less than the President's request. So when we think about the cumulative impact of it, it is just extraordinary. And I will place this data in the Record as well. I yield back the balance of my time. [From the Global Edition of the New York Times, July 6-7, 2013] When Debt Is a Sound Investment (By Robert H. Frank) I recently spent a week in Berlin, where the entire city seemed under construction. In every direction, cranes and other heavy equipment dominated the landscape. Although many projects are in the private sector, innumerable others-- including bridge and highway repairs, new subway stations, and other infrastructure work are financed by taxpayers. But wait. Hasn't Germany been one of the most outspoken advocates of fiscal austerity after the financial crisis? Yes, and that's not a contradiction. Fiscally responsible businesses routinely borrow to invest, and, until recently, so did most governments. Lately, however, fears about growing government debt have caused wholesale cuts in U.S. public investment. The Germans, of course, yield to no one in their distaste for indebtedness. But they also understand the distinction between consumption and investment. By borrowing, they have made investments whose future benefits will far outweigh repayment costs. There's nothing foolhardy about that. The German experience suggests how Americans might move past the stalled debate about economic stimulus policy. In the aftermath of the financial crisis, the policy discussion began with economists in broad agreement that unemployment remained high because total spending was too low. Keynesian stimulus proponents argued that temporary tax cuts and additional government spending would bolster hiring. Austerity advocates countered that additional government spending would merely displace private spending and that Americans already had too much debt in any event. And the debate has languished there. A preponderance of evidence suggests that Keynes was right. But as the German experience illustrates, progress is possible without settling that question. The Germans are investing in infrastructure, not to provide short-term economic stimulus, but because those investments promise high returns. Yet their undeniable side effect has been to bolster employment substantially in the short run. Not all German public investments have met expectations. Berlin's new consolidated airport, for example, has experienced several delays and cost overruns, and parts of the city's recently constructed central rail station will be closed this autumn for major repairs. But private investment projects undergo occasional setbacks, too, and no one argues that businesses should stop investing on that account. The Germans didn't become bogged down in a debate over stimulus policy, and they didn't explicitly portray their infrastructure push as stimulus. But that didn't hamper their strategy's remarkable effectiveness at putting people to work. The unemployment rate in Germany, at 5.3 percent and falling, is now substantially lower than that in the United States, where it ticked up to 7.6 percent in May and held there in June. (By contrast, in March 2007, before the financial crisis, the rate in Germany was 9.2 percent, about five percentage points higher than what it had been in the United States.) A prudent investment is one whose future returns exceed its costs--includIng interest costs, if the money is borrowed. Opportunities meeting that standard abound in the infrastructure domain. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, the United States has a backlog of about $3.6 trillion in overdue infrastructure maintenance. No one in Congress seriously proposes that the country just abandon crumbling roads and bridges, and everyone agrees that the repair cost will grow sharply the longer we wait. The case for accelerated infrastructure investment becomes more compelling with the U.S. economy still in the doldrums. That is because many of the needed workers and machines are now idle. If the country waits, it will need to bid them away from other tasks. Also because of the sluggish economy, the materials required for the work are now relatively inexpensive. If the country waits, they will cost more. And long-term interest rates for the money to pay for the work continue to hover near record lows. They, too, will be higher if the country waits. Austerity advocates object that more deficit spending now will burden grandchildren with crushing debt. That might be true if the proposal were to build bigger houses and stage more lavish parties with borrowed money--as Americans, in fact, were doing in the first half of the past decade. But the objection makes no sense when applied to long-overdue infrastructure repairs. A failure to undertake that spending will gratuitously burden the country's grandchildren. In 2009, austerity proponents in the United States argued against stimulus, predicting that the economy would recover quickly and spontaneously. It didn't. Later, they said the country tried stimulus and it didn't work. But in the face of a projected $2 trillion shortfall in the spending needed for full employment, Congress enacted a stimulus bill totaling only $787 billion, spread over three years. And much of that injection was offset by cuts in state and local government spending. Now austerity backers urge--preposterously--that infrastructure repairs be postponed until government budgets are in balance. But would they also tell an indebted family to postpone fixing a leaky roof until it paid off all its debts? Not only would the repair grow more costly with the delay, but the water damage would mount in the interim. Families should pay off debts, yes, but not in ways that actually increase their indebtedness in the longer term. Austerity advocates, who have been wrong at virtually every turn, are unlikely to change their minds about stimulus policy. But with continued slow growth in the outlook, it's time to re-frame the debate. The best available option, by far, is to rebuild tattered infrastructure at fire-sale prices. If the austerity crowd disagrees, it should explain why in plain English. Highlights of 2014 Energy & Water Appropriations Act 2014 mark: $30.426 billion. 2014 budget request: $34.483 billion. 2013 enacted (including Sandy reconstruction): $36.744 billion. 2013 enacted (excluding Sandy reconstruction): $33.240 billion. The 2014 Energy & Water Appropriations Act would provide: $982.6 million for Renewable Energy, Energy Reliability, and Efficiency (not including a $157 million rescission to 2013 funding), which is $971 million less than the 2013 enacted level and $1.96 billion less than the President's request for the same activities. $4.653 billion for the Department of Energy Office of Science, which is $223 million less than the 2013 enacted level and $499.8 million less than the President's request. $50 million for the Advanced Research Projects Agency-- Energy (ARPA--E), which is $215 million less than the 2013 enacted level and $329 million less than the President's request. $5.5 billion for environmental cleanup activities, which is $243 million less than the 2013 enacted level and $133 million less than the President's request. $7.675 billion for Weapons Activities (not including a $142 million rescission), which is $97.7 million more than the 2013 enacted level and $193.4 million less than the President's request. $2.1 billion for Nuclear Nonproliferation (not including a $20 million rescission), which is $334 million less than the 2013 enacted level and $40 million less than the President's request. The House bill also includes $245 million in activities previously appropriated within the weapons account, as requested by the Administration. $1.109 billion for Naval Reactors, which is $29 million more than the 2013 enacted level and $137.1 million less than the President's request. $4.876 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers (not including a $200 million rescission), which is $104 million less than the 2013 enacted level and $50 million more than the President's request. $965 million for water resources projects within the Department of Interior, which is $104 million less than the 2013 enacted level and $85 million less than the President's request. Sequestration Impact on Energy & Water Accounts This bill fails to address the sequester, ensuring it will harm our ability to meet energy and water needs next year, on top of the following impacts that are already taking hold. Forgone hiring by Department of Energy of 300 full-time employees; reduced contractor labor by estimated 1,200 employee-years through furloughs, layoffs, and hiring deferrals; furlough of approximately 60 employee-years affecting approximately 3,600 contractor employees; and layoff or voluntary separation of more than 300 contractor employees. Severe cuts to renewable energy and efficiency research, including $16 million from advanced vehicle technologies, $14 million from solar energy, $10 million from biofuels, $5 million from wind, $3 million from hydropower, $3 million from weatherization assistance, and $5 million from electrical grid modernization. Cuts to Office of Science delaying or cancelling laboratory construction, maintenance, and upgrades; and reducing math, computing, physics, atmospheric, and cytogenics research at labs and universities around the country. Cuts to Environmental Management resulting in furloughs, terminated activity and forgone work at Hanford Site (WA), Idaho National Laboratory, Oak Ridge Reservation (TN), Savannah River Site (GA), and Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (NM).

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

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), our very able ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Ms. KAPTUR. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, Representative Bera.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate Chairman Frelinghuysen's able and collegial leadership throughout this process and efforts to assemble a bill in an inclusive manner in our subcommittee. I also want to say what a pleasure it was to work with him, and I wish all subcommittees could work as effectively. I want to thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey for their efforts to restore a semblance of regular order to this House in consideration of our appropriations bills, and I want to thank all members of our subcommittee for their thoughtful deliberation in considering the best interests of our Nation as they relate to energy and water development and, importantly, America's nuclear security. I appreciate the dedication, hard work, and sound judgment of our committee staff on both sides of the aisle. On the majority committee staff side: Rob Blair, Ben Hammond, Loraine Heckenberg, Angie Giancarlo, Perry Yates, and Adam Borrelli. And on the minority committee staff side: Taunja Berquam; from the Chairman's personal office, Katie Hazlett and Nancy Fox; and finally my staff, Ryan Steyer, Nathan Facey, and Steve Fought. While Chairman Frelinghuysen's worthy efforts are to be commended in the highest way, the allocation imposed on our subcommittee by the Republican leaders of this House, and its Budget Committee, move America backwards in a global economy where our Nation's future is at stake. The Budget Committee's directive to us reminds me of a seafaring expression: ``If you don't know which way your ship is headed, you're bound to run aground or die at sea.'' This bill runs America aground. It says to future generations, we'll risk your lives floating lost at sea. It's simply inadequate to meet the needs of our Nation. America's budget deficit spiked because high unemployment, resulting from Wall Street's abandon and over a decade of war, caused high unemployment that reduced Federal revenues. This bill will not embrace the future, nor create the necessary jobs to reverse that trend and lift up America's working families. Our focus has to be on the future, on creating jobs and opportunity, with every single measure that comes before this House. Foreign energy dependence is our Nation's chief strategic vulnerability. This bill abandons America's quest for energy independence, which has the potential to create millions of new jobs. For every American life lost in pursuit of our Nation's national security, now dependent on energy imports, I dedicate my work on this bill today. And I also dedicate my work on the floor in memory of Judge Francis ``Buddy'' Restivo, a World War II veteran who passed this weekend, and just a phenomenal citizen of our country. This bill not only guts funding for alternative energy research and development, it officially heralds the Republican majority's embrace of sequestration. Sequestration is the most vivid symbol of congressional negligence. With that one dreadful bill, the Republican majority manages not only to turn its back on energy independence, but also to surrender its congressional responsibility to manage the budget of our country responsibly. The majority has waved the white flag. This year, in the Lake Erie region, we are celebrating the heroics of Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry, hero of the pivotal battle of Lake Erie in the War of 1812. Oliver Hazard Perry's motto was ``Don't give up the ship.'' The majority's motto is ``We just give up.'' We give up trying to perform our constitutional responsibilities with respect to fiscal affairs. We give up trying to create the much-needed jobs that will restore our fiscal footing. We give up trying to help America break free of its dependence on imported petroleum. We just give up. Let the mindless sequester be the status quo. It's no mystery why Congress' approval ratings have hit an all-time low. This policy is running our economic ship of state aground when we need full sail ahead. The allocation for the energy and water bill is $30.4 billion, which is $4.1 billion below the administration's request and $2.8 billion below last year's level. There are further allocation cuts beyond even sequestration levels, resulting in deep and severe reductions made to important priorities within the bill. The chairman worked to include resources for many Federal priorities, including the Corps of Engineers, the Advanced Manufacturing Office, nuclear safety and cleanup, and the bill also prioritizes some of the nuclear security programs. But funding these programs came at the expense of others so vital to future energy systems for our Nation, including renewable energy, cut by nearly 60 percent, and advanced energy research at ARPA-E, which received an 81 percent reduction. Shortchanging critical energy and infrastructure investments will slow economic growth and job creation, hindering America's competitiveness. Let us look at the water accounts. We must continue to invest in America. The scope of damage caused by natural disasters like Hurricane Sandy have laid bare the inadequacies of our water infrastructure. The Corps of Engineers budget currently has a backlog of authorized projects in excess of $60 billion from coast to coast. But this bill continues a steady decline in water resources infrastructure, reducing the construction account by $304 million from 2013. Communities across our country will continue to erode as they experience, firsthand, this decreased investment. The risks illustrated by the failure of flood control projects that the American people endured in the wake of Katrina are not gone. Communities across our country are in desperate need of investment, but this bill shortcuts that. Take St. Louis, Missouri, or Sacramento, California, where a levee break could leave residents with as little as 20 minutes to flee before the water gets 1 foot deep, are just two examples of major metropolitan areas where the Corps must work harder and faster toward more comprehensive protection. What sense does cleaning up after natural disasters make when preventive measures could prevent destruction and loss of life? We should be doing more to build infrastructure and create jobs, not less. Investments now will yield future benefits that will far outweigh repayment costs. That is what the Hoover Dam was all about. That is what our Mississippi River lock and dam system is all about. That is what electrifying our Nation, rural and urban, was all about, great visions for a great Nation, not Lilliputian surrender. On future energy systems, this bill would slash funding for applied energy research and development by more than half, even as foreign competition doubles down to develop 21st century technology while undermining our markets through illegal dumping and intellectual property theft. Renewable energy is a vital leg of future energy independence beyond the fossil fuel age. It will achieve cost competitiveness, but the question is, which countries will develop and own those technologies? The United States has spent $2.3 trillion importing foreign petroleum since 2003, representing thousands and thousands of dollars out of the pockets of every hardworking American family. These are dollars diverted not to much-needed American job creation but overseas, assisting our competitors in developing their economies and their energy futures. We are ceding millions of jobs and trillions in income from this country to undemocratic kingdoms far from home. Wake up, America. Wake up, Congress. In 2012, every billion dollars of U.S. exports supported nearly 5,000 jobs here at home. But can you imagine what $2.3 trillion in our energy trade deficit translates into lost jobs in America over the last 10 years? It's a hemorrhage. Our Republic will not compete in this 21st century and beyond if we further reduce investments in this area and cede our energy future to other countries. Predatory foreign competition in energy poses a real security threat to our country. I view it as the chief security threat to our country. I appreciate the chairman's commitment to ensure that technology developed with taxpayer dollars benefits our Nation first. The Department of Energy, however, must do more to ensure that intellectual property supported by Federal dollars furthers the interests of the United States economy. And I'm concerned with the level of funding, but I appreciate the chairman's commitment to American manufacturing in this bill. Manufacturing remains one of the most important job drivers in our economy, and there is little merit in using Federal dollars to foster technological advances or breakthroughs for products that are not ultimately made in America and manufactured domestically. America must do more to reverse the trend of domestic firms shifting production overseas because, to put it simply, domestic manufacturing drives domestic innovation and jobs here in America. Tragically, the science account critical to the competitiveness of our Nation is reduced by 5 percent from 2012. And, with an 81 percent reduction, 81 percent reduction in the new ARPA-E program, this bill would effectively end the most advanced research our Nation can launch. That is not a formula for success. We are beginning to see the initial payment from the ARPA-E, which advances high-potential, high-impact energy technology so advanced it is too early for private sector investment. Return on investment from our publicly-funded research and development ranges from 20 to 67 percent. It's a home run. With this rate of return, Congress should be increasing our investment in science. This bill moves us exactly in the opposite direction. Finally, I remain concerned this bill increases spending for nuclear weapons upgrades at the expense of nuclear nonproliferation and cleanup. I support the funding to maintain our nuclear arsenal at acceptable levels, and I appreciate the efforts to improve program and project management, including the reporting requirement on Life Extension Programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration. However, nonproliferation programs are on the front lines of our defense. They are the most cost-effective way to achieve the urgent goal of securing and reducing the amount of vulnerable bomb-grade material. But this bill cuts these critical efforts by $559 million. What sense does that make? Further, I am concerned that the funding the bill includes for environmental management activities is insufficient to meet the Federal Government's legal obligations to clean up its defense nuclear waste. In sum, this bill should achieve critical investments in our country. It fails to do so. It should promote job creation. It fails to do so. It should ensure national energy security and national security. It fails to do so. It should protect and promote vital infrastructure. It fails to do so. And it should advance American competitiveness, and it fails to do so. Unfortunately, Republicans on the Budget Committee continue to push the outrageous notion that we can balance our budget through cuts to non-defense discretionary spending, which accounts for only 17 percent of Federal spending. In so doing, they harm America's future in a very major way. Again, I commend the chairman's effort, however the allocation for this bill is insufficient and irresponsible and I cannot, in good conscience, support it. It is my firm hope that the committee will be provided a workable path toward the fiscal 2014 appropriation bills, and I look forward to the day we will return allocations to acceptable levels and to working with the chairman to draft a bill worthy of support. Let me, before reserving the balance of my time, read that quote right up there above the Speaker's rostrum. Let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its powers, build up its institutions, promote all its great interests, and see whether we also, in our day and generation, may not perform something worthy to be remembered. That is our charge in this bill, and this bill fails. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Representative Janice Hahn.

Ms. KAPTUR. I rise in support of Congressman Moran's amendment to strike section 112 and to protect the fresh waters of our Nation for future generations. I note that many of those who have spoken in opposition to the Moran amendment do not live in parts of the country that actually would be affected by the burial of this material. Section 112 would prohibit the Corps from amending its regulations to change the definition of fill material and discharge of fill material so that discharges of mine wastes and similar materials into the waters of the United States would be regulated under the more environmentally protective regulations and standards issued under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program in section 402 of the Clean Water Act and administered by the States, along with EPA. I don't know how many Members actually have had to deal with cleaning up messes in their districts. But I didn't know that, once I became a Member of Congress, how significant the work would be and what I would have to do just in my region of the country to clean up the mess from the past. Well, I've learned too much. Maybe the districts of those who are standing up in opposition to Mr. Moran's amendment have never had to do this. But let me tell you there are dead freshwater lakes in Ohio that are very close, in fact, to the gentleman who just spoke in opposition to Mr. Moran's amendment. There are lakes that have been polluted and no one knows how to clean them up. I have actually had the task of representing a river that is dead with waste that's in the bottom of the river that washed out into adjoining streams in the lake and all the scientists are trying to figure out how to cap it, how to do this, how to do that with the PCBs and everything else. There are Love Canals all across this country. We have to change the way we live for the future generations of this country. How about trying to clean up beryllium that's moving in streams and washing out and you see rising cancer rates? And why are cancer rates in certain parts of the country more than in other parts of the country? Well, it's the legacy of the past and the messes that aren't cleaned up. How about unexploded ordnance on the bottoms of streams and rivers and lakes across this country? If you get the Department of Defense charts on what exists in this country that needs to be cleaned up, the defense cleanup costs that are necessary just across this Nation, including in some of our freshwater lakes, is staggering. If you don't know about the problems, I'm sorry that you don't. But I don't see how adding mine waste to the rest of this mess is going to make the future better than the past. If you think about the population of the country, we had 146 million people in the country 50, 60 years ago. Today, we have 310 million. By 2050, it's going to be 500 million. But do you know what's not going to increase? The amount of water we have. The amount of fresh water is not an infinite resource. It is absolutely finite. And it's used once and maybe it drops down again in the rain. But nobody is going to give us more water. It's either going to be snowfall or it's going to be rain, and it's going to wash into our streams and rivers. There's not going to be anymore. We're going to have five, six, seven times more people than we had in the past. Why would we risk burying more junk in our rivers, in our streams, and throwing it out in these riverbeds around the country? If you haven't faced the task of trying to clean it up, then you shouldn't even be voting on this bill. The cost of past cleanups is enormous. I wish I didn't have to deal with it in my region of the country. I came here to make the parks better. I came here to build better housing. I came here to create jobs. And I'm finding I have these billion-dollar cleanup jobs for which we have no money, no money to clean them up. Why would we add to the problem? Under the current definition, such discharges are evaluated under the Clean Water Act section 404(b)(1) guidelines, which are not well suited for evaluating the environmental effects of discharging hazardous wastes like mining refuse and similar materials into jurisdictional wetlands and waters. Further, the current provision does not apply to just this year. It applies to any subsequent energy and water development act, precluding potential changes that may be necessary to protect public health or the environment. If you haven't seen babies that have tumors in their brains because some company buried waste in parks that those children played in, then somebody better wake up around here and change the way that we do business in this country, because we cannot do this. We cannot continue the bad practices of the past. We have to make life better for future generations that will have more pressures on them simply because of the population growth in this country. I urge my colleagues to support the Moran amendment, and I commend him for offering it on this bill today. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR

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. I move to strike the last word.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, as our nation celebrated its liberty and independence last week, a champion of liberty has passed away in our home community of Toledo, Ohio. Judge Francis ``Buddy'' Restivo passed from this life at the age of 91 on July 2, 2013. We extend deepest sympathy, heartfelt prayers, and gratitude from our community to his family for sharing him with us these many years. Truly, he was a generous, kind, and wise ``buddy'' to all who knew him. His gleeful presence never failed to inspire anyone who met him. His smile was infectious, his humor ever-flowing. Judge Restivo came from humble beginnings yet graduated from Toledo's Central Catholic High School and the University of Toledo, earning his law degree. The economic circumstances from which he arose in his early years were not easy and then he served during World War II, where he was a member of the Air Force 136th Radio Intelligence Squadron. He married his wife, Jane, with whom he celebrated 70 years of marriage. Together they built a strong family and raised four children. Buddy Restivo dedicated his life to public service and to our community. He was an assistant Ohio attorney general and assistant Lucas County prosecutor. He served on Toledo City Council in 1957 to 1960, and then served as solicitor for Sylvania, Walbridge, and Northwood. In 1971 Ohio Governor John Gilligan appointed him to the Toledo municipal court. He was elected later that year, and reelected to six-year terms in 1973 and 1979. In 1980, he was elected to a vacancy on Lucas County Common Pleas Court and re-elected in 1982. He retired in 1986 and worked until 2000 as a visiting judge and as a hearing officer for mental health commitment cases for Lucas County Probate Court. Judge Restivo was a fair and compassionate judge with a keen understanding of both people and the law. Lucas County Probate Court Jack Puffenberger said of Judge Restivo, he ``was considerate of everyone in his courtroom. He was an excellent judge. He had good legal knowledge and he knew people and he just knew how to be fair. He was a great mentor . . .'' Toledo lawyer Jerome Phillips perhaps expressed it best when he said, ``I would classify him as a people's judge. He had a wonderful understanding of people and how to try to deal with the problems they had.'' After retirement, though he kept in touch with the lives of colleagues and the law, his focused turned to fishing, family, and University of Toledo basketball. His son explained, ``He went on numerous fishing trips with family members. He was a big UT Rockets fan, especially basketball. He had season tickets probably 40 years.'' If the measure of a man can be counted by the lives he touched, then Judge Restivo was a great man indeed. He has shared his love of life, good heart, and generous spirit as husband, father, grandfather, and great grandfather for his wonderful family, as well as our community and country. He shall be missed by all who knew the pleasure of his company. How fortunate each of us is to have known him, been blessed by his happy spirit, love of life, respect for the ``common man,'' and his even-handed dispensing of the law. His good measure lifted us all. May his family and friends draw strength and comfort from his example of living life to its fullest as he helped countless others along life's way. His life made us all better as people and as a community.