Peter Visclosky

Mr. VISCLOSKY

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

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. 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

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 would point out that we have a vote pending in the House for a reduction of about $26.5 million from this account. This would be an additional reduction of another $45 million from this account. The gentleman noted that what his intent is is to get the Vehicle Technologies Program, if I understand him correctly, back to where we were in 2008. If I did understand him correctly, I would suggest that that is why we are where we are today, because the levels for vehicle technology research were inadequate, totally inadequate in 2008. You drive by a gas station today and gas is $4 a gallon. All of us repeatedly are asked what are we going to do about gas prices. If we are not going to act as far as price fixing, collusion, cartels, monopolies, speculation, and we can't do anything about the laws of supply and demand, I have indicated to my constituents the thing that Congress can do most effectively for the price of gasoline is help our constituents buy less of it. If we can, through vehicle technology research, help everyone in this country get an extra mile per gallon, we have helped them with the price of gasoline. If we begin to cut back to prior year levels as far as the investment in making sure people can move in this country as efficiently as possible and reduce our dependency on imported oil, we are not going to make economic progress in this country and are going to continue to be held hostage to those overseas who send that oil to us for our dollars that they then use for other nefarious purposes. Again, I think this is an ill-advised amendment. I think it takes us in the wrong direction. We should be looking for ways to ensure that we do good research to get more miles per gallon and to make sure that the Department of Energy also, as they do this research, ensures that it is applied not for more power in cars but for more miles per gallon, because, again, these are our taxpayers dollars. So for those reasons, again, I would be opposed to 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. I move to strike the last word.

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

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

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

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. But I think, again, it draws attention to the fact that we should be very closely monitoring the department as far as the expenditures of these funds. 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 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. Will the gentleman yield?

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 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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chair and the members of the committee and the exceptional staff that we have for their good work. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my appreciation to Chairman Frelinghuysen and his staff for their efforts to be inclusive and transparent in drafting this legislation. The chairman has ensured that the Energy and Water Subcommittee continues its tradition of bipartisanship and, within the constraints of the allocation, he has done wonderful work. While I hope that we can modify some elements of the bill, I would observe that our differences are marginal and our agreement is fundamental. Also, I would like to join the chairman in thanking the other members of the subcommittee and also all of our staff for their exceptionally good and dedicated work. As the chairman mentioned, the allocation for Energy and Water is more than $1 billion below fiscal year 2011. This allocation has necessitated severe cuts to crucial programs. While I appreciate the chairman's considerable efforts and recognize difficult choices must be made to address the Nation's serious financial situation, this bill starkly illustrates the shortsighted nature of the spending cap set by the House budget. The allocation for Energy and Water is simply insufficient to meet the challenges posed by the economic downturn and to guarantee our national security. Importantly, the chairman continues efforts to improve program and project management at all of the agencies under the bill's jurisdiction. He has honed provisions carried in the past and instituted others aimed at increased oversight. To point out one example, the bill includes a requirement that the Department of Energy complete independent cost estimates at major milestones for projects with a total cost in excess of $100 million. A recent review of the department's cleanup-related construction projects by the Army Corps of Engineers paints a bleak picture of the management system for such projects and casts doubt on recent reforms intended to remove the department off the Government Accountability Office's list for high risk, a list that the department has been on for the last 21 years running. I am pleased the chairman has included a number of reporting requirements and statutory limitations that will contribute to increased transparency and improved management, and I strongly support his actions. The science account, critical to the competitiveness of our Nation, is essentially the same as in 2011, not an insignificant achievement in light of the challenge the allocation provided. The bill also provides funds for the continuation of a promising new program called ARPA-E, which can drive innovations to support our scientific competitiveness. While ARPA-E has shown some promise as a new organizational model, I am troubled that the same vigor that led to its creation has been largely absent when it comes to addressing the systemic management and communication problems in other existing applied programs. I support and appreciate the inclusion of emergency funding to respond to the historic flooding in the Mississippi and Missouri River basins. Communities devastated by natural disasters deserve our full support. I am, however, disappointed that the bill offsets this funding by withdrawing critical investment dollars from economic infrastructure in the United States. I would note that this is the second time this year that the committee has transferred funds between bills, the first time from Energy and Water Development to Homeland Security, and now from Transportation to Energy and Water. We need to reconsider this practice and not strip investments in one area to pay for emergency needs in another. I disagree with the notion that all funding for domestic emergency response should be offset immediately from domestic investment. In every year except two since 1997, the Congress has recognized the need for emergency funds to respond to the impacts of natural disasters on the Nation's water resource infrastructure. Since 2001, the Congress has provided more than $24 billion to the Corps for this purpose. While I grant that this figure is inflated by the enormous cost of reconstructing New Orleans and the surrounding areas, perhaps New Orleans would not have flooded in 2005 had we invested in critical infrastructure in the prior years. As we debate the long-term trajectory of taxes and spending, we cannot forgo actions necessary for the security and safety of our citizens. Yes, we must make difficult choices that will impact the future of this Nation, but we cannot allow those decisions to fall on the backs of those who have already suffered. Our country has provided billions in infrastructure funding on an emergency basis for dams, schools and roads in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet we don't have the fortitude to acknowledge that it costs money to protect our citizens at home. We must stop disinvesting in the United States economy. In its 2009 report card on America's infrastructure, the American Society of Civil Engineers estimated an investment of $2.2 trillion is necessary to bring our Nation's infrastructure up to a good condition. Moving forward, we must have the strength to budget for emergencies on an annual basis. We know they happen every year, and it is time to begin to responsibly budget for them. I appreciate the chairman increasing Corps funding by $195 million above the President's woefully inadequate request, ensuring that some ongoing projects will not be terminated. Even with this additional funding, the bill provides $677 million less than it did in 2010. Our ports, harbors, navigational channels and locks continue to provide the foundation for long-term economic growth. At this funding level, we are not close to addressing the dredging backlog that plagues waterborne commerce in the United States. Currently, for the top 59 ports in the United States, the Corps is only able to maintain authorized steps within the middle of the channel 33 percent of the time. Every day, this costs companies that rely on these ports money and serves as a major impediment to expanding their workforce. This is merely one of the reasons why in 2009 the American Society of Civil Engineers gave our Nation's dams, levees and inland waterways grades of D or D minus. Renewable energy programs in this bill are reduced. We can debate whether our dependency on imported oil and other carbon fuels is an environmental problem or an economic problem. Either way, it is clearly a national security problem. We must expand the mix of our energy supply, and we must use the energy supply we have more efficiently, and we must also transport it more effectively. We have to make an investment to do that, and I do not believe that the allocation allows for the support necessary. I would note that the bill adds two hubs to the Department of Energy while cutting both the Science and Renewable Energy accounts that fund them, giving the Department a total of five. This organizational model has not yet been proven, and I have serious reservations about starting two new hubs in light of the cuts to the underlying accounts. Nonproliferation accounts are reduced significantly, and while I appreciate the chairman's efforts to preserve some of the most critical activities, the bill reduces our ability to counter the most serious threat confronting our national security and that is the threat of nuclear terrorism. The bill cuts the defense nuclear nonproliferation account by more than $460 million from the request. This comes on top of more than $360 million cut from the request that was provided in final fiscal year bill 2011. These cuts reduce our ability to secure vulnerable nuclear materials around the world, delaying the removal of bomb-grade uranium, and limiting our capacity to detect illegal and illicit trafficking of nuclear materials. And, finally, I am troubled that the bill includes a misguided prohibition on funds to develop, adopt, implement, administer or enforce a change or supplement to rules related to the Clean Water Act regulatory guidelines. This provision applies not only to this fiscal year but to any subsequent energy and water act. We should be taking actions that address legitimate concerns while providing some clarity and certainty to the regulatory process, not prolonging the confusion, as this provision ensures. In closing, I am truly appreciative that we are again doing the work of this committee, and I commend Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Dicks for their efforts to this end. And as I said at the beginning of my remarks, Chairman Frelinghuysen has done a superb job. While marginal differences exist, our agreement on the overall bill is fundamental. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the ranking member on the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

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