Peter Visclosky

Mr. VISCLOSKY

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Again, I thank the staff very much. I yield back the balance of my time. Announcement by the Chair

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would take a different tact on the issue of common sense and security. I would like to talk about the security of our Nation and about our economic infrastructure and about these Corps regions. I understand that the intent of the gentleman's amendment is to prohibit the Corps from preventing individuals from having handguns on projects administered by the Corps. I understand it's aimed at those who obviously support the Second Amendment. I do, myself. The fact is, I believe the gentleman's amendment is injurious to our national security. I do not think it is a good idea to allow individuals to walk around with guns over dams and water treatment plants that are administered by the Army Corps of Engineers. Now, I assume that some of my colleagues disagree with me. However, this amendment also prohibits the Corps from implementing or enforcing rules on explosives and fireworks and other weapons. I don't believe there are other Members in this body who believe the Corps should not be able to stringently enforce rules on explosives at dams and water projects and treatment facilities that they have jurisdiction over. Further, what if there's danger of fire on the Corps land? Unless there is some other law that supersedes the regulations that your amendment is aimed at, Corps employees would not be able to prevent people from launching fireworks, despite the dangers of wildfires. I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment and would hope that he would consider withdrawing his overly broad and misguided amendments. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I will reiterate my strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. We are talking about allowing people with weapons in areas where we have dams and water treatment plants, and the Army Corps of Engineers ought to be able to exercise control over those for the protection of those major economic infrastructures. I would respectfully disagree with the gentleman, that he would also reduce their ability as far as the regulation of people with explosives. And I think that, again, is very detrimental relative to our national security. For these reasons, I strongly oppose 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. I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment and join with my colleagues from California and New Jersey in their opposition. The amendment is a legislative attempt to circumvent a draft Executive order which would provide for increased disclosure of the political contributions of government contractors, especially contributions given to third-party entities. The argument is made that companies should not disclose more information because people in power would misuse that information to retaliate against them. Using that logic, all campaign disclosures are bad. Government contractors already disclose contributions and expenditures by their PACs and those who contribute to them. By extension, we ought to take that law and ensure that the voters of this country are protected so that they also know what those corporations are doing with their money as far as involvement in the electoral process. The provisions, as drafted, are, I think, very good. The information is required to be provided, and the Executive order that the amendment would circumvent enhances the quality of information that people and citizens ought to have before they go to the polls. Disclosure is good. And for that reason I rise, again, in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I associate myself with your support of the amendment.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say again we are talking about a standard that was adopted under law in 2007. We ought to try to achieve that standard to save energy in this country. I remain opposed to the gentleman's amendment. I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, there is a Web page that has been described by the proponent of the amendment at the Energy Information Agency. Over the past 12 months, the Web site has had over 26 million visitors. There are 224 million pages of information. It is not an underutilized site. The fact is that young people access the kids' page more than any other one on this Web site, visiting 16 million pages. ``Energy Kids'' gets nearly 10 times as many hits, if you will, as the adult version. The gentlelady talks about puzzles and other very elementary approaches as far as education. I think education, not being an educator myself, ought to be age appropriate. I would also point out that there have not been significant changes as far as the update for this site in that they're trying to hold down the cost. To the extent that work has taken place, $10,000 has been spent in fiscal year 2011, not necessarily in the coming year. There is no anticipated incremental cost for the ``Energy Kids'' Web site in the fiscal year 2012 President's budget. But the reason I really rise in opposition is not necessarily over the details but with respect to the idea that we should not look for ways to educate young people in this country. We are having a tax on science; we are having a tax on scientific knowledge; we are having a tax on education. What is wrong at this late date with educating young people and having the Federal Government reach out and provide information on conserving energy, on using it wisely, recycling, so that we can reduce our dependency on energy? We have programs--and have had them for years--on drugs. Maybe for those under 18 we shouldn't have any Federal expenditures to educate young people about drugs because, well, we've got to save money. We're at a spot where we just can't spend any more Federal funds on education. We have an obesity problem in this country. Youth obesity is at a crisis level, but maybe what we should do is say, If you're under 18, we don't want to spend any money educating you because we can talk to you when you're 19. We have a problem as far as people not getting enough exercise. Too many people use elevators. They park their cars close to the door. So maybe we shouldn't spend any Federal resources educating young people about, you know, you should walk once in a while. You shouldn't sit on that couch all day. You shouldn't watch that TV all day. So let's stop educating. Let's stop using any Federal money because we've got a debt crisis here--and I acknowledge that. So let's just stop educating young people. Let's just stop, and we'll wait until they're all 18 and they have type 2 diabetes. Then we'll stop because they've got a drug problem, and maybe we can convince them to get off of drugs when they're 18. Maybe we'll convince them they ought to get on a treadmill when they're 18. In this case, when are we going to start? As a parent myself and not an educator, my sense is the damage is done for young people. That's why we have a Head Start program by the time they start school. Children have that impression. They gain that knowledge. They have values that are transferred to them by their parents. I certainly think there is an absolute role by the Federal Government to help young people know what are the values and what are things to do that will improve our society for them and their generation. So I am strongly opposed to this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. The gentlewoman talked about getting people away from their computers, and I would agree that we need a balance in life. That's why we should educate people--children--that there is a value of sitting in front of that computer, in gaining knowledge through that computer and in using it for their homework--but then getting out and exercising, making sure they know they shouldn't do drugs, making sure they should eat appropriately. Not being a terribly compliant person as far as technology, I understand that you could take a walk and still access that site. So why don't we do both. I would ask the gentlewoman to consider withdrawing her amendment, but I will state my opposition to it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that my colleague's relief stands with the authorizing committees. We have a law in place since 2007. Perhaps he might want it amended through the authorization process. At this point in time, I think it is unwise policy to slow this study down and would ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. As the gentleman pointed out, we had this debate earlier this week on the House floor. I would point out that the performance standards for light bulbs were established in an act in 2007. It's the law of the land. At that time the bill enjoyed strong bipartisan support, with 95 House Republicans voting for final passage and the bill being signed into law by President George Bush. As far as I am aware, the issues that inspired this standard have not changed and, if anything, 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. It is estimated that efficient lighting will save the average American family around $100 every year. Further, while claiming that the incandescent bulb is dead makes for a good sound bite, it doesn't affect reality. As a result of the 2007 law, manufacturers are already making a variety right of new energy-saving bulbs for homes, including more efficient incandescent bulbs. These bulbs look, light and turn on like those we have used for decades, but are 28 to 33 percent more efficient. What we are talking about here is a standard, not the definition of a discrete bulb. This progress has been made because of the standard and goals that were set in that bill. I do not think it is time to turn the clock back. I do think we ought to enjoy these energy savings, and I am opposed to the gentleman's amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri. The WRDA 2007 Act, which was passed with such bipartisan support that it overcame a Presidential veto, authorized the Corps to undertake the Missouri River Ecosystem Restoration Plan and develop the Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee to consult on the study. This authority provided a venue for collaboration between the 70-member stakeholder group of tribes, States, affected groups, and Federal agencies to develop a shared vision and comprehensive plan for the restoration of the Missouri River ecosystem. By prohibiting the Corps from expending any fiscal year 2012 funding on the study, this amendment will result in a scheduled delay of the study, potentially additional start-up expenses and schedule impacts, and potential erosion of trust of the delicate partnership in this basin. There also could be legal implications associated with the National Environmental Policy Act if funding were prohibited for this study in the longer term. A 1-year prohibition would not allow work described above to be done and could push the entire schedule of the report out. I also do believe that it places the Army Corps in jeopardy of not being in compliance with the act, which could also adversely affect their operation of the dams on the waterways. In the long term, the study represents the required programmatic NEPA coverage for the Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Recovery Project; and 13 Federal agencies, eight States, and 15 tribes have formally agreed to cooperate with the agency under the act. The fact that this was authorized in 2007 in an overwhelming fashion, that you have had this collaboration, and there are risks involved in adopting the gentleman's amendment, I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding and would join him in his opposition to the gentleman's amendment. Again, I think the chairman has stated the proposition very well, but I would point out that the program's technical assistance activities really do help prime markets for clean technologies in major emerging economies to support and encourage U.S. exports. So again, I am opposed to the amendment and appreciate the gentleman yielding.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. These are legal appointments made by the President of the United States--by this President, the last President, the President before that, the President back to George Washington. It is the administration's priority to make these appointments. While each of us, or collectively, disagree with some of the individuals put into particular positions, until we change the law, the House should not pick and choose the staff for the executive branch any more than it should be picking ours. If the gentleman wants a say in the President's hires and appointments, I suggest he work to change the Constitution. Article II, section 2 gives the Senate say over Presidential appointments and gives the President power to make recess appointments. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, this is a constitutional issue, and we have no business in it. I would urge my colleagues to vote against the gentleman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the chairman for yielding and join with him in opposition. I think he has stated the case very well. I would also add the expenditures in this legislation on nonproliferation. I think one of the greatest threats our country faces is the issue of nuclear terrorism. Again, we have to be very thoughtful. The chairman has had to make some very serious and profound choices. I think he has done an excellent job doing so, and we ought to stop where we are. I am opposed to the woman's amendment.