Peter Visclosky

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I also rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. We need to move away from our dependency on fuel imported by unfriendly nations. I have in past debates on this floor, and I would do it again, referenced the senior Senator from Indiana, Senator Lugar, who has long characterized our energy crisis paramount, as one of national security, given where those petroleum purchases take place. The fact is, if we can get more miles per gallon, we have solved part of that national security crisis. None of us today standing here or sitting here are going to be able to do much about the price of a barrel of oil. But if each one of those individual drivers can get some relief by getting an extra mile per gallon for their vehicle, we have also helped ameliorate their economic pressure and the costs that they have. I think it is shortsighted to eliminate this program which has the potential to address a major issue in the viability and practicality of electric vehicles, and that is the battery. We need to be looking at the cost, performance, life, and abuse tolerance of batteries, and I do support the Department's efforts on this front and have been active for a number of years in seeking additional funds for it because I think it does a great value to this country's future. I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I simply would associate myself with the chairman's remarks, Mr. Critz's remarks and Mr. Doyle's remarks and would simply conclude my portion by thanking both gentlemen for raising this vital issue. We engage in investing in infrastructure in Afghanistan. We create infrastructure investment in Iraq and elsewhere. It is time that we repair and invest in the infrastructure, the waterway infrastructure in the United States of America, to create jobs in the short term and to create jobs in the future. Again, I really, from the bottom of my heart, thank the gentlemen for raising this issue and look forward to working with them.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I also want to add my voice to the chair's in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. We just had a colloquy on the House floor with several Members from the State of Pennsylvania relative to the fate of 230 lock chambers on our inland waterways that carry hundreds of millions of tons of cargo. If they fail, we would need, as has already been mentioned this morning, 24 million additional trucks, which would cost billions more in fuel and generate millions of tons of pollution. These locks that are the backbone of this Nation's inland waterway system were built with a 50-year design life. Many of those that exist in western Pennsylvania are now over a hundred years old. Relative to cuts, I want to emphasize to our colleagues that there was a lot of work that the chairman, the members of this subcommittee, and the staffs put into this bill to make very discreet, discerning decisions, and in many instances, to make cuts. I would take simply one program as an example: environmental cleanup. We have, again, a national responsibility to clean up these legacies of the Cold War for the health and safety of 300 million people. But we made discreet decisions. For defense environmental site-by-site decisions, for example, on the Office of River Protection in the State of Washington, we are $30 million below last year's level. For the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the State of Tennessee, we're $20 million below last year's level. For the Savannah River site in South Carolina, we are $43 million below in the current year level. For the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant we are $12 million below last year's level. And for technology development, to do a better job on this, we're $1 million below. We made discreet decisions. I would simply close by saying that the gentleman at the close of his remarks said that he wants this cut to take us back to where we were. Those locks were built a hundred years ago. I don't want to go back there. We are here to take this Nation forward and to invest in the future of this Nation so that the young people of this Nation have a future. I do not want to go back to where we were. I am adamantly opposed to the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I believe that there is a proper role for government where there is no private organization willing or able to fill an information need, and information is vital if we are going to improve our energy policy. This program provides a venue at a very modest cost to the taxpayers to disseminate valuable information that supports the diversification of the Nation's energy supply. While I do appreciate the gentleman from Arizona's efforts to search out sources of wasteful and inappropriate spending, I disagree that this program is one of those instances and join my colleague from Washington in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment. Developing oil shale into a fuel source is very energy intensive. Both strip mining and in situ oil mining requires huge amounts of energy. In fact, more energy may go into developing the process than would be produced in the oil secured. Oil shale development is projected to have a dramatic effect also, as was mentioned during the debate, on water supplies. This water would further stress already overallocated water in the West. Oil shale development also poses a potentially serious threat to water quality. The process of transforming the kerogen in shale into oil leaves behind salts and numerous toxins, water-soluble chemicals that could leach into the groundwater that is the source of much of the region's surface water during the critical time when flow is lowest. Flushing these chemicals from the oil shale production zone, as several companies have proposed, would also create huge volumes of highly saline water that will require further treatment. The technical feasibility of isolating and treating contaminated groundwater has not been demonstrated. The proposed development of this resource will recreate major new demands on the energy grid as well. By some estimates, the new power plants needed to support a 1 million-barrel-per-day oil shale industry--and we believe that is the low end of DOE's projections-- could emit 105 million tons of carbon dioxide every year. That's about 80 percent more than was released by all existing electric utility generating units in the States of Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah in the year 2005. The spent shale that remains after processing is also not an easy problem, and it will not go away. It potentially represents between 90 and 95 percent of the material that is mined. The Nation already has a legacy of sites that we cannot afford to adequately clean up today. We should not add to this legacy. While I have indicated during debate on this bill that I support a balanced approach to solving the Nation's energy issues, given the costs and environmental impacts of this particular source at this particular time, with our constrained resources, this is one alternative that should be foregone. Again, I strongly support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the recognition and rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment. I certainly appreciate the concerns he has expressed about cleanup nationally, as well as the site illustrated in Utah, and share his concerns that we are not adequately investing in cleaning up contaminated communities where we have a national obligation. This amendment would make a cut of $9.6 million to the weapons program, but I would point out to my colleagues that while I support the weapons complex and its modernization, this is a very slight change in funding, an account that has a $7.5 billion allocation and sees a $275 million increase for 2013 under the bill. And, therefore, I do think the gentleman has taken a very reasoned approach and strongly support his amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very reluctant opposition to the gentlelady's amendment, as well as remarks issued by the gentleman from Virginia. I certainly appreciate their desire relative to the good work being done at ARPA E. The two points I would make in opposition is that, first of all, the gentlewoman was absolutely correct on the top-line figures for fossil fuel, but I do think they are somewhat misleading because there is a rescission contained within the bill for $187 million. The true reflection, as far as the relationship between current year spending and the proposal in the House bill, is for fiscal year 2012. Fossil fuel is at $534 million. The proposal in the subcommittee mark and the committee-reported bill is $554 million. Again, appreciating deeply the very good work and cultural change that is taking place within the Department of Energy because of ARPA E, I would also point out that energy consumption today by fossil fuel is represented by about 83 percent of our utilization. We do need to continue to be focused on that huge segment of current use to be more efficient and to reduce our carbon footprint. Again, I would add my remarks to the chairman's, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment for the very reasons I espoused briefly before relative to the gentlewoman from Hawaii's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the recognition, Mr. Chairman, and I also rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. Our country really does need a diversified energy portfolio. Nuclear is part of that. Almost a quarter of all of our electrical power today is generated through nuclear power. It is carbon free, and I do not think this is the time to withdraw research support. In light of, particularly, the tragedy in Japan, the safety of our existing fleet and progress as far as improved technologies is vital. And, again, I would add my voice to that in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the recognition and rise in strong support of the gentleman from Illinois' amendment. I believe the debate on this has been very fruitful and will simply add my voice to theirs. I believe the administration and the Senate's ongoing attempts to shut this activity down are without scientific merit and are contrary, as has been said on the floor, to existing law and congressional direction. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the Federal Government has a responsibility to demonstrate its capability to meet its contractual obligation by addressing the spent fuel and other high- level nuclear waste at permanently shutdown reactors. We need to ensure that the administration does not unilaterally dictate policy for nuclear waste disposal, and I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the gentleman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I would be happy to yield the gentleman some time, if he needs it, to close.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I rise to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the recognition and do rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. The standards the gentleman is very exercised about were contained in the EPA Act of 1992 and have been in effect for more than a decade. And they, in fact, do save energy and they do save water. A number of States are starting to adopt tighter standards on these products, including the State of Georgia, because they do save energy. There is no part of the country, including mine that borders the Great Lakes, the largest body of fresh water on the planet, that does not have water supply concerns. In California, there has been a tremendous public investment to encourage and incentivize homeowners to replace their utilities with models that require less water. I really do not know why we are discussing this issue again. We talked about it in the nineties. We talked about it in the last decade, and here we are this evening talking about it again. Manufacturers have been complying with this provision for, again, a decade. The question is: Why are we talking about it today? I am aware of an enforcement action recently, but against plumbing manufacturers who have put multiple compliant showerheads onto one fixture, obviously trying to sidestep the law when you have three efficient showerheads attached to one. With water shortages across the country, with an energy crisis in most of the Mountain and Western States, I would ask my colleagues to oppose the gentleman's amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I do rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. While I have some sympathy for the issue that the gentleman has raised, I believe that more consistency should be brought to the way we evaluate wetland impacts, not less, as this amendment would ensure. The Charleston Method has been utilized for two decades in various Corps districts. The Charleston Method is a quick, inexpensive, and consistent methodology--I think that's very important to note, a consistent methodology--for use by the regulated public and the Corps. The gentleman suggests that it doesn't work. If it doesn't work, I do not know why in 2006 and 2007 the New Orleans District worked with its Federal and State partners to modify the Charleston Method so that it better reflected the unique conditions found in southern Louisiana resulting in the Modified Charleston Method. The use of the Modified Charleston Method is longstanding in many Corps districts. Many regulatory customers use the tool to assess their potential mitigation requirements for their impact site as well as credits required at mitigation banks. This transparency in Corps mitigation requirements has helped the applicant prepare a complete application package and determine mitigation costs up front. Suspension of the use of the Modified Charleston Method in Corps districts would require that any pending permit applications--section 404 of the Clean Water Act--and pending mitigation banks would need to be reevaluated using a different assessment tool/methodology or, in the absence of such, use best professional judgment to determine appropriate mitigation requirements for impacts and for available credits in mitigation banks, obviously encompassing a great deal of delay. All approved mitigation banks with available credits that were determined by the Charleston Method would be temporarily closed until a new methodology could be developed and the bank credits converted to the credit system of a new methodology. These banks were established utilizing the credit system of the Modified Charleston Method, and until a similar credit system can be determined for these projects, it would not be possible to correlate the new requirements with the old system. We would not have transparency; we would not have consistency. We would have delay. For these reasons, I do oppose the gentleman's amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.