Peter Visclosky

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Well, if I could reclaim my time, relative to the gentleman's congressional district, I can't speak specifically, except to note, again, the commission is relatively new; the dollar amounts, relative to the Federal budget, are modest; and we're talking about seven States. Perhaps the real value here is that they are spread a bit thin and obviously do not have at this point in time a program in the gentleman's district. But I don't think that that was warranted, given the breadth of their responsibilities over seven States, to argue against their demise. So, again, I would respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The Southeast Crescent Regional Commission includes all of the counties from Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida that are not already served by the ARC or the DRA. Though relatively new, this regional commission is intended to address planning and coordination on regional investments and targeting resources to those communities with the greatest needs. Many of these areas covered by this commission suffer from high unemployment--10 percent in South Carolina, one of the highest in the Nation. Marion County in South Carolina has 19 percent unemployment. The county has seen both textile and manufacturing jobs disappear, and this economic predicament is similar in much of the area covered by the commission. As we have seen with ARC investments, investment in regional commissions can go toward area development and technical assistance goals such as increasing job opportunities, improving employability, and strengthening basic infrastructure. The conventional wisdom among economists has long been that regional approaches can be valuable in addressing developmental situations that cannot be addressed simply through local policies. For example, to help people in one jurisdiction to find jobs, one may have to create jobs for them in a neighboring growth center. In recent years regional approaches have gained greater support, hence the relative newness of the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, in part because of increased global competition that rural communities face. When people think of the First Congressional District that I represent, because we produce more steel in one congressional district than any State in the United States of America, they also miss the fact that one of the counties I have the privilege of representing has 9,000 people in it, another has 14,000 people, another has 23,000. There are very rural areas that are also economically stressed and do not have those centers of gravity and need that type of tension to try to generate some new economic opportunity and jobs, which is why, just from my practical experience with the rural counties I have, I do believe it is important to continue to work with the commission; and that is why I do rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the chairman's yielding. I would just add two brief comments in support of the amendment and of the chairman's remarks. The administration's attempts to shut this activity down, I believe, are without scientific merit, and are contrary to existing law and congressional direction. I believe that the Federal Government has a responsibility to demonstrate its capability to meet its contractual obligation under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act by addressing the spent fuel and other high- level nuclear waste at permanently shutdown reactors. So, again, I will join in support of the amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program supports the development of innovation and advanced technologies that create energy jobs and reduce our Nation's dependence on oil. I believe that this is an energy issue in its truest form as far as reducing our dependency on foreign oil. Another observation I would make: If the amendment is adopted, it would ensure that we would have no oversight, no oversight of the loans that the Department has already issued, ensuring that both Congress and the administration would, therefore, abdicate their responsibility to protect and ensure that taxpayer dollars are used in the manner they were intended and that the recipients follow through on the conditions of those loans. For these reasons and reasons espoused by my chairman, I again am opposed to the gentleman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I rise in opposition to the amendment. I have spoken on a number of occasions this evening about the need to invest in research. In this instance, there is a school of thought that I would not argue, that ARPA-E has shown some promise as a new organizational model at the Department of Energy. But as I have stated, debating this point in the past, I am troubled that the vigor at the Department that has led to ARPA and this new idea, singular, has largely been absent when it comes to addressing the systemic management and communication problems in other existing applied programs. The Department had a great idea that I support in creating energy frontier research centers. That began in 2009, and we now have 46 energy frontier research centers doing good work. We now have energy innovation hubs. We have a hub for energy-efficient building systems. We have a hub for fuels; a sunlight hub. We have a hub for modeling and simulation. There is a request approved in this bill for a hub for batteries and storage. A hub for critical materials. The Department of Energy in 2007 had an idea that we should have a bioenergy research center system, and we now have three. We have the Joint Bioenergy Institute in Berkeley, California. We have the Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center in Madison, Wisconsin. We have the Bioenergy Science Center in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. In 1997, the Department of Energy had an idea. We should have a Joint Genome Institute. It was established, and now we have one in Walnut Creek, California. We have what has been described to me as the gems of the intellectual power of the United States of America in the various laboratories that I have not even enumerated in my remarks. Again, given the allocation we have had, there have been cuts to the underlying accounts in science and EERE that provide funding for many of these research centers. I think before we proceed along the lines established in this amendment, we need to make sure that the Department understands what their allocation of resources are for what they have and what they historically have had to make sure that there is good communication, and to make sure that the promise of ARPA is met as we proceed down this road before again we start making additional significant investments. So I do understand and appreciate what the gentleman wants to do here. I do support this research to create this knowledge, but it is time to ensure that the Department is managing properly and having proper communication between all of these other centers first. For that reason, I object to the gentleman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. The Department of Energy owns world-class facilities and researchers, and we should be taking full advantage of these facilities and not cut this account to where we are not able to use the capital fixed assets we have for this significant request in a reduction in funding. I would point out to my colleagues, in 2006 President Bush made a commitment to double the budget for the Office of Science over a decade. The commitment to double funding for research and development by President Bush in science and technology was a response to stark warnings from a group of government experts and business leaders that warned in their report, known as ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' that the scientific and technological building blocks critical to our economic leadership are eroding at a time when many other nations are gathering strength. I would certainly share the gentleman's concern about some of the myriad programs and ensuring that they do communicate with one another. He had mentioned the hubs. I had been critical of hubs in my past comments. He has talked about management. I have been very critical of the Department of Energy as far as their project management. But I would also point out that in relative terms, I believe that the Office of Science, and particularly given the leadership under President Bush by Dr. Orbach, who is now at the University of Texas, has done a very good job in getting a handle on the Department, improving its management skills and trying to do their very best as far as the expenditure of these funds. For those reasons I do, again, 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 appreciate the chairman yielding, and would join him in his opposition to the amendment. I would make a general observation. The gentleman's amendment would cut $10 million from the Office of Science. When you look at a $4 billion budget, your first impression might be it is of little consequence as far as the overall scientific research in this country. But I would point out that in fiscal year 2010 the account was for $4.904 billion. In fiscal year 2011 it was reduced to $4.842 billion. For, prospectively, 2012 it's reduced another 43. The gentleman's amendment would increase that reduction by almost 25 percent for the coming fiscal year. And I do think it is time to say ``no,'' and let us apply ourselves to serious scientific research. I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and appreciate the chairman yielding.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I rise in support of the gentlemen's amendment. While I have stated many times in committee as well as on floor debate that I applaud the chairman's bringing funding into the science account almost to where we were in fiscal year 2011 and have described it as a not insignificant achievement, adding these $43 million to bring it into parity with current year spending is not asking too much and, as the previous speakers have indicated, is very important to making an economic investment in knowledge and jobs that we so desperately need in the United States. In the committee report we indicate that, relative to the Office of Science, understanding that harnessing a scientific and technological ingenuity has long been at the core of the Nation's prosperity. We talk about that national prosperity linkage to scientific research and curiosity. I also, relative to the concerns the chairman expressed about the weapons account, think that that important priority will not be adversely impacted by the shift of funding called for in the amendment. I rise in strong support of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the chairman's yielding, and would join in his opposition to the amendment, reluctantly, as the chairman indicated. I certainly do understand the concern of the two gentlemen who have offered the amendment, the concern regarding cleanup in the State of New York and elsewhere; and do share their concerns that we are not adequately investing and cleaning up contaminated communities where we do as the Federal Government have an obligation. I also do point out that, given the constraints faced by the subcommittee, I believe that the chairman has made wise choices, the best that he could, relative to the spreading of resources; and join in his opposition to the amendment. Obviously, we would like to continue to work together to see that adequate funding at some point is provided for these and other programs.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to my good friend's amendment. Since we have been debating this bill, we have heard time and again that we must make tough decisions on what we choose to fund. My colleagues across the aisle, in particular, have made a point repeatedly that we should not be funding activities where industry can and should. This program deals with research and development to maximize the production capabilities of marginal wells and reservoirs. Certainly we can't argue about the merit of that; but it seems that as we talk about subsidies, particularly to a very profitable industry--oil and gas--we should be consistent. Compiling and maintaining a database on oil and gas wells at this level of detail I do not believe is the proper role of the Federal Government and is likely to be duplicative of what is currently being done in the industry. Further, it is my understanding that States and private industry have had a great deal of success fostering the recovery of oil and natural gas from marginal wells with similar initiatives. These State and industry initiatives have been successfully driven by an economic need to have pertinent information on hand when evaluating the economic viability or filing permit applications. Given that that process is working on a local and State level, I do not believe that we should rush for Federal Government involvement. It seems to me that we should be looking for smaller government wherever possible; and this gives us a chance today, in opposition to this amendment, to do it right. The gentleman makes the assertion that this system has resulted in public disclosure of all chemicals in hydraulic fracturing fluids. Texas has arguably one of the strongest--if not the strongest-- disclosure laws and is still far from a requirement to disclose ``all'' chemicals; and the database in question is also significantly weaker than Wyoming's regulation on public disclosure. Mr. Chairman, I do reluctantly, because of my friendship with the gentleman, strongly oppose his amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I also appreciate my colleague raising this important issue. I agree that the committee understands the importance of this program. The CBECS data is essential not just for Federal programs to reduce energy use like EPA's Energy Star for buildings and DOE's building technologies program, but for private sector efforts like the U.S. Green Building Council's lead rating system as well.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the chairman for yielding and supporting the amendment. I certainly appreciate the gentleman offering this amendment. I think it's very, very important. Certainly I think the most serious threat confronting this Nation is that of nuclear terrorism. Again, I appreciate the gentleman's work on the issue day in and day out, offering the amendment, as well as those who support it. I rise in support of it.

Peter Visclosky

Speeches

Manage analytics