Marcy Kaptur: “While the amendment is a modest one in terms of the funding in the account, which is over $400 million, I cannot support…”

“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. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck).…”