Peter Visclosky

Mr. VISCLOSKY

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. 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. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment for reasons I have stated on other very similar amendments relative to energy research into renewable accounts. I would point out there has been reference about the care that the subcommittee has taken as far as drafting this legislation. Stated in the committee report is language relative to solar, that the committee encourages the Department to include in its efforts disruptive solar energy utilization technologies, fabrication methods that yield ultra- low-cost solar cells, technology for ultrahigh efficiency solar cells, and technologies designed to simulate the operation of solar cells and other methods to yield advance sciences. The committee also recommended no funding for solar demonstration zone projects, as the Department has adequate facilities at its existing laboratories. So they certainly recognized that they did not want money expended in that area. The committee also indicated in its report that it is aware of the significant cost and efficiency advantages that solar films can provide to thin film and crystalline silicon modules, and we encouraged the Department to expand the funding of solar film research and development. So, again, the moneys that are provided, which are very tight, are also very thoughtfully put forth with very directive language by the committee. For that reason, I do oppose the gentleman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I rise also to join my chairman in opposition to the gentleman's amendment relative to, again, cutting back on what I think are very necessary investments in our economy as far as research, both as far as renewables, as far as fossil energy, as far as the science account. The gentleman mentioned advanced solid-state lighting. It is my understanding that Philips has indicated that a small investment in manufacturing technology to improve the mechanisms as far as the construction and manufacturing of these lightbulbs would allow them to bring back jobs that are currently outsourced overseas. If we make that investment, and I hope we do, I certainly would want to join with other colleagues to see if, in fact, Philips Electronics is good to their word. But at this point I would state my objection. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I also have to rise, with great respect to my colleague, in opposition to the amendment. I certainly appreciate, having just talked about needing to invest in a mix of energy sources in the future, what the intent of the amendment is. He obviously wants to return us to where we are in fiscal year 2011. I would certainly point out for the record that at that level, $1.795 billion, we would still be significantly below where we were last year, fiscal year 2010, when our level of spending in this account was $2.24 billion. The problem I have here is particularly where the money has come from, and that is the weapons account. Too often, and we saw it again last week, we do tend, I think unnecessarily, to hold the defense accounts harmless. In this case the committee has recommended, and it was very carefully considered, an increase in the weapons account. If the amendment was adopted, the fact is we would be $269 million below current year level, for a cut of 4.3 percent. I have on numerous occasions in my district, in conversations with colleagues on the floor and elsewhere, suggested it is time, if we are going to solve our budget crisis in the United States of America, for everybody to belly up on both sides of the equation. And I don't care where you're getting you're paycheck or how you're earning your contract money; I cannot believe if you are a defense function of the Government of the United States you can't find one penny, one cent of savings out of every dollar we spend. Having said that, that comes out to 1 percent. I think at this point the 4.3 percent in the weapons programs, that is very important as far as their safety, their security and surety, is a step beyond that 1 percent I have so often talked about the last months. So with great respect to my colleague, I would also oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I will be brief. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris) and I are pretty close, but I will respectfully oppose his amendment for a couple of reasons. One is that the program that is subject to his amendment is coordinating programs with other countries. We're not, by definition, sending jobs overseas to other countries. The theory of the program is to provide technical assistance for activities to help prime markets for clean technologies in major emerging economies, and the theory of the program is also that it can bring home lessons learned from other experiences and share them at the national, State and local levels. I say I reluctantly oppose his amendment and that we are very close because I have great concerns over any number of these types of programs at the Department of Energy. I have expressed my displeasure to the Secretary, among others, that if we are going to invest our taxpayers' money--our money--in these endeavors, we ought to be very discreet as to how those moneys are spent to develop markets in the United States of America and, God bless, the rest of the world. So I will in this instance take the Department of Energy at its word, and that's why I would respectfully oppose the amendment. I would be happy to stay in close communication with the gentleman, and I would be happy to stay in very close touch with the Department of Energy relative to the management of this program and, assuming the moneys are in the fiscal year 2012 budget, to pursue this program to make sure that your point is heard and that their expenditures are not violative of what you want to do today.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield to the chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would point out to my colleagues that while the pending legislation is $141 million below fiscal year 2011 levels, the fact is we do have approximately $1.5 billion that essentially has been forwarded to the States. And the chairman just mentioned the issue of jobs. Those moneys are available as they are allocated and distributed for weatherization programs to put people to work. We have had complaints in this Chamber over the last week about the last unemployment report. These moneys have already been budgeted. These moneys have been obligated to the States, and these moneys can put people to work doing useful things such as helping those who need to weatherize their house and reduce their utility bills so they can have enough money to buy gasoline and put it in their cars, as well as to begin to reduce the use of energy in this country. These are very necessary moneys to create jobs, to help those in need, and to reduce our energy dependence. I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, and it would appear there will be others differing in amounts but very similar in intent. And I think that they do not represent a wise energy policy for this country. The first point I would make is that the bill includes a reduction of $491 million for the overall renewable program from fiscal year 2011, an even more significant reduction compared to fiscal year 2010. So the committee, I believe, fully recognizes their responsibilities to be careful fiscally. But I also must indicate that someone who I have a great deal of respect for, my senior Senator in the State of Indiana, Senator Lugar, has always characterized our energy problem as a national security problem. I think we all recognize it is an economic problem. We can debate the environmental aspects. I happen to think it is an environmental problem myself. But I don't think anyone can dispute the fact that it is a national security issue, relative to where we are buying so many of our petroleum products. And to gain energy independence, we are going to need a different and more diverse matrix of energy sources. Seventy percent of our energy today is created through coal and natural gas, and that cannot continue. That is not healthy for our Nation. It is not healthy for our economy. It is not healthy for our national security. We need to diversify. In this instance, the committee has recognized our fiscal responsibility but continues to make an investment in our economic, our job, and our energy futures. And I do oppose the gentleman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and rise in opposition to the amendment as well.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I certainly appreciate, again, the gentleman's seriousness in offering it. I appreciate what he wants to accomplish, but the history of this issue has been discussed by a number of speakers. The fact is there have been Presidents of both parties who have made this recommendation over the last 3 years, and there has been directive language by this committee under the direction of both political parties over the last 3 years. The point is there is a benefit to another agency in the government outside the Department of Energy picking up a reasonable cost, and there ought to be an agreement. Until that is done, I would, with all due respect, rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I do rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. It would cut over 10 percent of the total funding in the bill. Specifically, it would eliminate or significantly reduce funding for 14 different accounts. I have several concerns. One, the gentleman said that it is time to get out of subsidizing energy research. Notice that he did zero out many accounts, and certainly would not argue that point. Yet, as a proponent myself of nuclear energy, I would point out that he did not throw out that account, and approximately $444 million would be left in the nuclear research account. So there was some selectivity that was engaged in here as far as the construction of the amendment. Then my concern here as far as the research, as far as the whole broad range of energy research in this country, is that we do need to make that investment to move ahead economically, to move ahead in reducing our dependency upon oil imports and the use of carbon in this society, so I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment. Without this amendment, the bill would result in increased implementation costs to both the Federal and State resource agencies, as well as to the regulated community, increase delays in the implementation of important public works projects and protracted litigation on the disparity between existing Federal regulations and the two court decisions. Clearly, the Army Corps of Engineers cannot exceed its congressional authority. But it's certainly necessary that the law and regulations be clarified, given the Supreme Court decision. There is a purpose to the Clean Water Act. It is to protect the Nation's waterways. And all of the environmental and economic benefits these aquatic ecosystems provide are at risk if some elements are protected and others are not. We certainly need to make sure that the definitions are predictable and manageable. The definition of waters protected by the Clean Water Act should be clear, understandable, well-supported, and transparent to the public. I am concerned if the language currently in the bill is not removed that that will not be the case. It is certainly needed to promote consistency between the Clean Water Act and agricultural wetland programs. We need the identification of waters covered by the Clean Water Act and the Food Security Act. And operational elements of implementing programs should reflect consistent, predictable, and straightforward decision guidelines. We ought to be precise on exemptions as well. My further concern is that the provision now contained in the bill does not apply simply to the coming fiscal year; it applies to any subsequent energy and water development act, ensuring uncertainty continues indefinitely. So I am in strong support of the gentleman's amendment and would be willing to yield time to him.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The gentleman's amendment would strike section 102 of the bill, a provision that prohibits the use of the Circular A-76 privatization process and high-performing organization process for the Army Corps of Engineers. This is a debate that we have had before. This provision enjoys support from both sides of the aisle, and has been included in this bill every year since fiscal year 2008. This provision was originally included to stop an effort to privatize the operation, maintenance and repair of locks and dams. The importance of locks and dams to our Nation's economy cannot be understated, and any failure to ensure that the Nation's waterways remain safe and navigable would cripple the economy. These operators and mechanics make vital decisions affecting the lives, liberty and property of private persons, thus rendering the workload inappropriate for contractor performance. Further, no reasonable argument has been made that the locks and dams are overstaffed. Additionally, the Corps undertook a privatization study for their IT personnel in 2004. After an expensive 3-year study, the results came back as an in-house win. In general, the circular is profoundly flawed. Both the Government Accountability Office and the Department of Defense Inspector General have reported that agencies are constantly unable to demonstrate that A-76 studies result in savings and that agencies fail to consider the significant costs of conducting such studies. There is nothing wrong with attempts to look for efficiencies in the Federal workforce--that certainly is clear--but when describing A-76 processes, I think of a phrase often uttered by other colleagues: ``That dog won't hunt.'' We need to stop wasting millions of dollars on these expensive competitions that time and again show government employees are a less expensive alternative, and I would urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I yield back the balance of my time.