On the recordJuly 9, 2013
This debate is a perfect example of why this bill's funding is so inadequate. What is really being debated is whether we are going to trade off the science of the future, which is so essential to America's competitiveness in the global economy, to take care of necessary past cleanup. Who can make that choice? They are both essential. Are we going to sacrifice the future for the past? That's really what this debate is about. We know that this bill is $4 billion under the administration's request and over $2 billion under what we spent in this fiscal year of 2013. So we really have an argument that nobody wins. If we fund the past cleanup, we sacrifice the future. If we sacrifice the future, do we really take care of all the past cleanup? We hardly do what's necessary, even with current funding. So I think it's a perfect example of where the sequestration process is so counterproductive and moves America backwards. We have very imperfect choices here and actually very dangerous choices that we're being forced to make. I think the majority would be much better suited to come back to us with a budget that allows us to do the job that the Energy and Water Subcommittee is charged with doing. We simply can't try to solve the problem internal to the resources we've been given. It's an impossibility. So somebody is going to lose; and I guarantee you in the past amendment that just came up, some of the people that were the losers have no lobbies here in Washington.…
