Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding and rise to strongly oppose the Gosar amendment to completely eliminate the ARPA-E advanced energy research program, which helps propel our Nation forward as a global leader.

I could just say to the gentleman from Arizona, for some of the firms that have contacted me, the Chinese are hacking into their intellectual property every week as they struggle to maintain a global lead in new energy technologies.

Yes, ARPA-E is a pioneering program. It was designed to be that way. Yes, it is high risk. Yes, it is high end, so much so that the private sector won't do what ARPA-E is conducting. The research is so high in science that most companies in this country can't even touch it. And, frankly, I don't want the Chinese designing our future.

They are actually doing research before the private market can drive it forward with a commercial product.

I would like to point out that, in 2011, an American Enterprise Institute-Brookings Institution breakthrough study called for ARPA-E to be funded at $1.5 billion, annually, because of other countries around the world beginning to do research in a way that was competing with our own.

The American Energy Innovation Council, a panel of many of the Nation's top business leaders, including Bill Gates, have called for ARPA-E to be funded at $1 billion a year. And last year, Republican officials--oil and energy executives, business leaders, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--told Congress, ARPA-E is a blueprint `` . . . that boost our competitiveness by keeping America at the forefront of global energy technology research.''

These are some of the best people in our country. We ought to be listening to them. We are their representatives. As the program focused on new possibilities, new patents, ARPA-E has been nothing short of remarkable, with 136 projects attracting nearly $3 billion in private sector follow-on funding.

They won't do the research, but they will take what we have invested and really do something in the marketplace with it; but beyond just the marketplace, something that might have something to do with our defense, for example, something to do with our national security-- inventing the future.

And yet we have come to expect this administration, they want to eliminate funding, and some of their allies here in the Congress want to eliminate funding. You eliminate the future if you do that. You really do eliminate the future.

So I rise and strongly oppose this amendment. Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Gosar amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank Congresswoman Lee, my colleague on the Appropriations Committee, for offering this very important amendment, and I rise in support of it.

Please let me remind my colleagues who may not agree with our position that if this particular proposal for developing a low-yield nuclear weapon were so important, why was it not included in the administration's initial budget submission to us?

The process by which this has been handled for a nuclear weapon--if this were a conventional, then maybe there is a little room there for maneuver. But in terms of a nuclear weapon, it has many consequences beyond the weapon itself, including the understanding of our allies and including many of the treaties that are currently in place.

I was actually shocked when the Secretary of Energy and many people from the Department of Energy came before our committee and they could not answer any questions on this. The nuclear security agency, when they came up before our committee, at that point this had not been proposed. It came in late; it was thrown over the transom. And I think the manner in which this has been handled is actually terrible.

We have the most capable and sophisticated nuclear arsenal in the world. It is credible enough to deter and respond to any threat right now. We have what we need.

But if we are to alter the combination of weapons that we have in our arsenal, then, for heaven's sake, why not come up under regular order?

We owe it to the American people and to our allies to have a full discussion and debate and assess how others will react to what we are doing and what we need to respond to. This may not be the most perfect response. And we don't want to wander down a path to a variety of nuclear weapons without the kind of debate on deterrence, on security, on cost, on schedule, and on relation to existing systems that we have in place in our own country or others.

So I really think the manner in which this was handled was absolutely awful. For something that deals with nuclear weapons, this Congress deserves more respect, the American people deserve more respect, and the world community deserves more respect. We are not saying we will never support this, but this is not the time to support this.

I think the Congresswoman has proposed the proper amendment, and that is to strike the low-yield missile at this point.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank Congressman Connolly for yielding me his last minute and rise in support of this very important amendment to move $97 million to the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account.

Without question, we are going to undergo modernization of our entire nuclear stockpile in this country. We are going to spend well over a trillion dollars.

In addition to that, we have had discussions this afternoon and debate about this new low-yield nuclear weapon, which many people have misgivings about in view of the way it has been handled in committee here.

There is no more important time in terms of the world, when we look at many unstable regimes that hold nuclear weapons within their stock, for us to have the most capable people with the most technical expertise to advise, not just people here in the United States, but our friends and allies abroad and international organizations concerned about nuclear proliferation.

So the gentleman's amendment increases our ability, doesn't harm our ability, to monitor and verify arms control agreements and prevent other countries from acquiring nuclear weapons.

I support the amendment. I think it makes sense with what we are doing with our own arsenal and what is happening globally. It makes ultimate sense that we should never cut these accounts.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for yielding, and I rise in opposition to this amendment, not completely understanding what it is the gentleman is objecting to.

I know that you have an individual about whom you are upset. The gentleman is from the State of Arizona.

Am I correct?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. KAPTUR. The State of the gentleman is under this Western Area Power Authority. We don't have that sort of power umbrella in our region of the country. I have read all about the fights in the West among all these Western States, a dozen and a half Western States: Arizona fights with California; California fights with Washington; Washington fights--it is unbelievable. So I am a little reluctant as a non-Westerner to believe anybody until we get a proper tribunal to assess whether what you are saying is correct or not. For all I know, this man put some power in another State that hurt Arizona. I don't know.

I look at the controversies out there, and I just think that this amendment targets one person and reduces their salary to one dollar without any trial, without any tribunal. It sort of reminds me of the way in which the gentleman's side of the aisle handled the firing of the chaplain and then, because we finally tried to get some justice here, he was brought on.

Mr. Chair, you don't do this to people. We have a judicial process in this country, and you have to go through the proper channels. I think we have to focus on fair ways in which to adjudicate if, in fact, there is something going on out there. I really question whether what is really going on here is a fight between Arizona and adjoining States.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

I would just say, you know, there used to be an old expression. They asked Jesse James, ``Why do you rob banks.'' He said, ``That is where the money is.''

So I think about the situation we face in our country today. I am not willing to take the money out of this budget, which I consider critical to America's security at home and abroad, and meanwhile, in other fora, to give trillions of dollars to the top 1 percent in this country who aren't really interested in what we are doing here much, don't appreciate it sometimes. I am not willing to leave off the hook the Wall Street bankers that took us into the 2008 recession, not a single one went to jail.

It is interesting where the gentlewoman is looking for money. One of the reasons I chose to be on this subcommittee is I am sick of going to war for energy. Too many people from my region have died.

I think part of America's solution is becoming energy independent and being able to conduct war where we have to. This bill allows us to do that for the sake of the Republic.

I think the gentlewoman has a good intention to try to balance the budget. I think she is looking at the wrong end of the telescope.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to thank Congresswoman Jackson Lee for yielding and for the incredible work she does representing the Gulf region in its fullness.

I understand, through her and through my own studies, the damage done by Hurricane Harvey and the need for studies such as these to advance flood control projects to mitigate future damage. I think she has been such an articulate spokeswoman, reminding us that times are changing and we have to pay attention to coastal communities.

I have to also mention that there are funds in the supplemental bill we passed earlier this year for purposes such as these, and we have plussed up the Army Corps budget in this particular bill. So I think that will serve Texas very well.

And the gentlewoman mentioned the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. We are all deeply concerned.

So I thank my colleague for offering this amendment. I thank her for her great leadership and urge all of our colleagues to support her amendment. e

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. KAPTUR. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, though I think he intends it well.

I want to inform him that the Department of Energy has said it does not have plans to purchase additional heavy water from Iran. So I think this amendment is really irrelevant.

Frankly, I would rather that the United States take whatever Iran has rather than letting them sell it to Russia or somebody else. But the Department of Energy has clearly said they don't have plans to purchase additional heavy water from Iran.

And so the gentleman's amendment is unnecessary, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chairwoman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

I just wanted to say, the gentleman who is offering this amendment, I oppose the amendment, and you and I view the world very differently.

I view the Government of the United States as a bulwark for social and economic stability in this country. If I look at why we have a deficit going back, one of the reasons is oil wars.

This department is one of the most important departments in the country to lead us to energy independence as a country. I don't think we should do what you are asking us to do here. If we look at our trade deficit, we haven't had balanced trade accounts since the mid-1970s.

Adding trillions of dollars to our trade deficit every year is making it harder to fund Social Security and Medicare, programs that are essential to social stability in this country. If we look at the 2008 crash and the trillions of dollars that cost us as a country, nobody on Wall Street went to jail.

It is interesting to me where people want to pick away, pick away, pick away when you look at the big money, the moneys for war, the money for paying for imported goods as opposed to producing here at home, the causes of what happened in 2008, and there was no justice that was given to the Republic.

So, to me, energy independence is critical, if you look at the trillions we have added to the deficit because of war. So we look at the country through different ends of the telescope, I think, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I really think the result of your amendment will be less investment in the Republic, less investment in water resource infrastructure and energy development, and less investments that create good jobs and have substantial returns on investments such as modernizing our ports and all of the infrastructure that helps us to achieve social and economic stability in this country, which isn't easy to do.

So I thank my colleagues for listening, and I would urge opposition to this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source