Marcy Kaptur: “I would say to Congressman Hastings that I rise with sympathy toward the situation you face at Hanford, but must oppose…”

“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.…”