Peter Visclosky

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is there is no money in the bill for this project, so I do not know why the gentleman is offering it. But I have no objection to it, and 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. I move to strike the last word.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would simply mention that if the gentleman from Iowa is suggesting that labor organizations in this country today are discriminating on a racial basis, he has not attended many union meetings lately. I yield the remainder of my time to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would note at the beginning of my remarks that Davis-Bacon is a very simple concept and is a very fair one. The law requires that workers on federally funded construction projects be paid no less than the wages in the community in which the work is being performed for similar work. Large Federal projects can disrupt local markets if cheap imported labor is used. Davis-Bacon requirements ensure that local workers, citizens, Americans, have a fair chance at bidding for Federal contracts in their own individual communities. Additionally, prevailing wage protections are not the reason we have deficits. Doing away with them will not result in savings to the Federal Government. Davis-Bacon does not add to a project's total cost. A 2011 study of highway construction projects in the State of Colorado proved this point as it found no statistical significance between the cost of highway projects in the States which were subject to Davis- Bacon and the cost of State highway projects which were not subject to Davis-Bacon. Davis-Bacon has not led to extravagant wages for affected workers. I would point out at this date, 2012, from 2000 and 2008, the real hourly wage rate for construction workers, carpenters, electricians, iron workers, plumbers, steelworkers, declined--declined--despite a small increase in the hourly wage rate. I would point out when my mentor, Congressman Adam Benjamin, Jr., walked into this room in 1977, the real hourly wage for 1 hour's worth of a human being's work in the United States of America--it could have been laying brick, it could be pushing papers in Congress, it could be waiting on tables at a diner in the middle of the night--was more for 1 hour's worth of a human being's labor in the United States of America than it was in 2010, and we're here trying to slam down that wage. You want to save money on contracts, why don't we look at the executive compensation for these construction firms? Why don't we look there for some as opposed to going to the lowest common denominators. Opponents claim that Davis-Bacon requirements are a union giveaway. However, more than 75 percent, three-quarters of Davis-Bacon wage determinations, are not based solely on union wages. There are issues about the quality of work. Get it done efficiently, get it done right, do not do it a second time. That is crucial to these communities depending upon them. When local workers are hired, they are duly accountable to their employers and to the communities in which they reside. If the work is shoddy and therefore is delayed or needs to be redone, their families, their friends, their communities, have to live with the consequences. This is a throwback, and I am strongly opposed to the gentleman's amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. At this time I yield to my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would simply say this is not a Davis-Bacon attempt to increase wages. It is protecting those who labor in this country from having their wages undercut. I am adamantly opposed to the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the recognition and rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The gentleman, during his debate, mentioned a penny of savings out of a significant sum of monies. I would point out in conjunction with the chairman's remark that the non-security programs in this bill for fiscal year 2013 are $188 million below current year level spending because the subcommittee and the full committee made discreet decisions account by account. Dependent upon nomenclature--and I don't want to get into a semantic argument--there may be some of these cuts that the gentleman proposes that touch what nominally would be considered defense accounts, but he also makes a point that he is going after non-defense discretionary spending. I assume because he has left defense harmless that he has never read an inspector general's report relative to any defense program in the United States. And he mentioned a penny in his remarks, and I find it curious that he could not find 1 cent of savings out of 1 dollar spent in a defense account. For that reason among many, I am strongly opposed to the gentleman's amendment. If we are going to, in fact, make an investment in this country and if we are, in fact, going to address our budgetary problems, everybody has got to be on the table with no exceptions. The gentleman's amendment, from my perspective, is a mistake, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague from Maryland. The amendment would essentially create an energy renewable program for the U.S.-Israel program by restricting the EERE international program from dealing with any other country. I certainly am a supporter of the country of Israel, and Israel has a vibrant and cutting-edge clean energy industry, but I do not believe that we ought to limit this program to one country out of many, and think that it would be a mistake to put all of our international program eggs into a single basket. This program, which directly supports the mission of the Department to advance the development and deployment of clean energy technologies, needs to be able to establish relationships with multiple partner countries in order to be effective. The program's technical assistance activities help to prime markets for us for clean technologies in major emerging economies. The program can bring home lessons learned from others' experiences to share with national, State, and local authorities. The program can also promote U.S. national security and potentially reduce price volatility of fossil energy resources by decreasing the influence of oil-exporting countries and mitigating world demand for oil. Again, this is an excellent program. I do not believe it ought to be simply limited to one country. I am opposed to the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I am happy to accept the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I firmly believe that the issues that inspire Congress to enact energy efficiency standards in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 2007 have not changed and, if anything, they have gotten worse. Families continue to struggle every day to meet rising energy bills, and there are real savings to be had by moving to more efficient illumination. However, if this bill is going to carry a provision prohibiting the Department of Energy from implementing and enforcing the light bulb efficiency standards, then it does not make much sense to hold DOE grant recipients to the standard. I surmise that most recipients of DOE grants who tend to be pretty energy savvy have already made the transition to light bulbs and are enjoying their energy savings as we in the House rehash and debate the exaggerated doubt of the incandescent light bulb. However, I do not oppose the amendment of the gentleman from Minnesota. I yield back the balance of my time

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, while I agree with the gentleman from Minnesota that the moneys from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund should not be diverted from their intended purpose of dredging, I do think it is an overreach for the legislative branch to prohibit the executive branch from even discussing the topic. I do think we are in a position where looking forward we ought to let other branches of government talk about ideas and concepts so that they can be debated by this body. Additionally, though, we all know that any proposal put together by the executive branch to expand eligible activities under the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund without first addressing the surplus and addressing backlog issues would not be considered in either House of Congress. Again, I do not believe particularly that the amendment is necessary. That being said, I do not oppose its inclusion in the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would point out to my colleagues that this debate is not about choice--or energy efficiency, for that matter. It is about, from my perspective, endangering American jobs and, specifically, American manufacturing jobs. We have a significant trade imbalance in this country. Given that American manufacturers have committed to following the law regardless of whether or not it is enforced, the only benefit to this amendment is to allow foreign manufacturers who may not feel a similar obligation to export noncompliant light bulbs that will not only harm the investments made by U.S. companies but place at risk U.S. manufacturing jobs associated with making compliant bulbs. Further, I believe they represent a tax increase. It represents an equivalent of a $100 tax on every American family--$16 billion across the Nation--through increased energy costs. The performance standards for light bulbs were established in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. At that time, the bill, as I pointed out in an earlier portion of this debate, enjoyed such strong bipartisan support that we were able to override a Presidential veto of that act. As far as I'm aware, the issues that inspire this standard have not changed, and I would argue have gotten worse. It is a common misunderstanding that the Energy Independence and Security Act bans the incandescent light bulb and requires people to have the limited choice of only a compact florescent bulb. This is not true. It simply requires that they be more efficient. And I do not see what the harm is in that. Further, while claiming that the incandescent bulb is dead makes for a great sound bite, it does not reflect reality. I am opposed to the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I simply would voice my support for her amendment.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the recognition, and would yield, at this point in time, to my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).