Peter Visclosky

Mr. VISCLOSKY

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would be happy to recognize my friend and ranking member, Mr. Hobson from Ohio, for such time as he may consume.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).

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

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

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

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

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

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would reserve the balance of my time, understanding I have the right to close, and I will be the final speaker on our side.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time and will begin my remarks in opposition, first of all, by again thanking my friend and colleague from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), all of the members of the subcommittee, and the staff, who have done a very good job on this bill and improved the circumstances for people's safety, health, security and employment opportunities. I would like to make a couple of points. The first is, we've heard a lot about the expenditures that are enumerated in this legislation, and that certainly is worthy of debate. What has been lost today, but was covered earlier this year when the bill originally was on the floor, is the fact that there are significant cuts that have been made in this bill to programs that we felt could be either eliminated or reduced because they did not have the same value and merit as those contained in the legislation we're considering today. And I would note that there were 37 different DOE weapons programs that were cut. There were an additional 20 programs, two in the Army Corps of Engineers, two in the Bureau of Reclamation, three within the independent agencies, and 13 others in the Department of Energy that were reduced because we did not feel that they cut mustard and did not make the same significant contribution to our country. As far as our infrastructure, and I would want to focus on that for a few minutes, the investment in our water infrastructure, for example, in this legislation represents a little bit less than 20 percent of the overall spending. But I would note that in 2005, the American Society of Civil Engineers estimated that nearly 50 percent of the Corps of Engineers-maintained locks are functionally obsolete using a design life of 50 years. Many of our communities do not enjoy the benefit of adequate flood protection. We think of moving the commerce of this country. We think of people's safety. We are woefully behind. There are numerous channels and harbors throughout our Nation, across this country, that are not maintained at usable depths, much less at the authorized levels. Again, for every ship that uses a channel or a harbor not at depth, they are coming in and they are leaving lighter. That is less efficient as far as the economy of our country. The Corps of Engineers' backlog is $50 billion. One thing that I would note for the membership here is that during the last several years under Mr. Hobson's leadership as chairman, one of the things that we have tried to do is, if you would, to focus funds on some programs to meet that backlog, to make sure that some projects ultimately are completed. I would also point out that the committee is mindful of the responsibility that we all have in Congress regarding ensuring that Federal funds are spent in a responsible manner. This committee has been at the forefront of changes to the fiscal management of the Corps of Engineers. In light of the challenges involved in modernizing this Nation's water resources infrastructure, we have required, again, over the last several years, a more disciplined and rigorous approach to fiscal and contract management by the corps. This bill continues financial management contracting reforms to ensure that the corps manages its budget in the best interests of the taxpayers. The recommendations include directing that the corps continue to take action in considering additional factors as they proceed in the planning of projects. Outside of water infrastructure, we do have the Department of Energy that encompasses obviously more than three-quarters of the spending in this bill. As was noted when we brought the bill to the House floor, regrettably, as a citizen, as a public official, I would note that since 1990, the Department of Energy has been on the high-risk list of the GAO for project management. That is all of our money. One of the things that we have, again, attempted to do in this bill is to begin to force the issue with the Department so these major construction projects are brought in on time and on budget. As I mentioned, and I will close on this note, in my remarks at the beginning of the debate, we started today, the money spent in this bill, whether they were enumerated originally by the administration or by the Congress, are investments, investments in our national security and in the safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons. They are investments in our energy security, which is now in economic crisis, a national security crisis and an environmental crisis. We have increased funding for biofuels. We have increased funding for vehicle technology. We have increased funding for renewable energy research. I am proud of the subcommittee's work in those areas. We have made investments in the health of our people, in that if you have clean water to drink, you are going to enjoy good health. If you do not, you are going to become very sick. We have also looked at the health of those citizens around our country who live in and around former weapons sites and the nuclear cleanup that is going to unfortunately still take decades to accomplish. These are investments in the safety of our citizens. Think about those dams in this country. Think about one of those locks failing. Think about the gentleman in Highland, Indiana, who lost his life when the Little Calumet River flooded. They are investments to create a climate and to build the infrastructure of our Nation that encourages the development of new, well-paying jobs. To the extent we have made changes in the administration's priorities, whether they be by earmarks or changes in programs, those changes have been to enhance the effectiveness of the programs in this bill and to complement them. Mr. Chairman, for all of these reasons, I certainly am opposed to the gentleman's amendment, I would ask my colleagues to oppose it, and I would ask for my colleagues' support of the underlying legislation. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, if my colleague would yield for a moment, I certainly appreciate the gentleman striking and yielding the time. Again, I understand and appreciate the gentleman's concern and his passion about this. Obviously, I cannot make any representations, other than I would want to stay in touch with both gentlemen and see what can be done and to work closely with you. But I appreciate again the circumstances you find yourself in and would be happy to try to work with you.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor).

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, we would be happy to accept the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor), a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to claim the 5 minutes in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, even though I am not opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I want to set the stage for what is occurring on the House floor at this point in time because it is my privilege to submit to the House for final passage H.R. 2641, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008, with its supplemental report. On July 10, the Appropriations Committee approved the supplemental report unanimously by voice vote. As I have said before, this is a good bill and it merits the support of the entire House. I would emphasize that the money spent in this bill, whether enumerated originally by the administration or by the Congress, are investments, investments in our national security, investments in our energy security, and investments in the health and safety of our citizens. They are investments to create a climate and to build the infrastructure that encourages the development of new, good-paying jobs in our country. To the extent we have made changes in the administration's priority, the changes have been to enhance the effectiveness of the programs in this bill and to complement them. I would like to give two examples. All one needs to do is look at the West Sacramento Flood Control Project as proof that we are dealing with fundamental issues, like ensuring people and their families' lives are secure and their homes and their businesses are protected from devastating floods. In Tennessee, the Center Hill Dam is another project that Congress has funded to control flood waters and generate clean, safe and efficient hydroelectric power. There are also examples of administration funding requests that originated in Congress years ago. For fiscal year 2006, Congress designated funds to support activities at the supervisory control and data acquisition test facilities at the Idaho National Laboratory. This system has proven itself so useful in helping to improve the reliability and robustness of the electric power grid that for fiscal year 2008 the administration has included the project as part of its project request. If nothing else, this shows how the executive and legislative branches can work together to fund important projects for the Nation, regardless of who initiated support for the idea. Mr. Chairman, as we consider today's supplemental report to the Energy and Water Appropriations bill, I urge my colleagues to keep these factors in mind. The specific projects enumerated in this report serve a purpose: To improve the quality of life for our citizenry and to make advances on key priorities facing our Nation. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?