Marcy Kaptur: “I am opposed to this amendment because it is sort of an untargeted proposal, and our budget in many places on this bill…”

“I am opposed to this amendment because it is sort of an untargeted proposal, and our budget in many places on this bill is very tight. We know the net effect will be to reduce jobs and hurt the middle class in a sector where America needs help, and that is energy independence and the modernization of our infrastructure. The result of the amendment will be less investment in water resource infrastructure all over this country at a time when global trade is increasing. Energy research and development programs, which lead us to future energy, not past energy resources, which create good jobs and have substantial returns on investment, will be harmed. At a time when unemployed Americans lose jobless benefits and when many young families struggle just to survive, we should be creating jobs and securing the American Dream through investing in our energy future, including innovation and investments in the ground in every ``all of the above'' energy sector we have, not tearing it down. Just since 2003, the United States has spent $2.3 trillion in importing foreign petroleum. Think about that one. This is a vast shift of wealth, and thousands upon thousands of jobs are connected to energy production from our country. This amendment only exacerbates this shift of wealth from the American middle class to offshore. It is not something I support, and I doubt the gentleman really wants to support that.…”