Peter Visclosky

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, we may only have one speaker on our side, so I would still reserve my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I reserve my time at this time, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, but let me first begin my discussion by expressing my sincere respect for the gentleman who has offered the amendment, Mr. Bishop, as well as the two speakers who have followed him in support of it, particularly my colleague on the Appropriations Committee, the chairwoman, Ms. DeLauro. I would point out to the body that this is the second FERC issue that has been brought up on a regulatory matter before the subcommittee on the floor. We have had other inquiries from Members that have not reached this level that are very similar in substance in other areas of the country. I would not pretend to deny that there is a problem, but I am not competent to sort through that fact as I am not a regulator myself, to make a determination, and do not believe that this is a venue to make those particular determinations. The amendment before us undoes the Natural Gas Act for the orderly review and decision making process for energy infrastructure and limits energy development efforts. FERC's consideration of applications to site energy facilities does not imply that the applications will be granted, or if granted, will not require appropriate environmental protection measures. Moreover, all FERC authorizations are subject to judicial review. I do believe that FERC's application process ought to be able to run its course. And again, I regret that I have to stand in objection to the amendment but trust that my colleagues understand the impetus for that.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding very much and certainly appreciate his passion and concern about the health and safety of his constituents and this important issue to him. The problem we have incurred on the committee, and this is not the only regulatory issue regarding FERC that has been brought to our attention, is we are not a regulatory body and obviously have jurisdictional issues that are set aside over and above the issues of substance relative to the gentleman's amendment. But we do appreciate his concern. Certainly we would be happy to stay in touch with him, without making a commitment, that this issue will be resolved through the appropriations process. We do believe that the higher this issue could be raised as far as the public and the regulatory commission, the better off all the citizens of his community are going to be. Again, I thank the gentleman for raising the issue and appreciate the fact that he apparently will be withdrawing his amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong objection to the gentlelady's amendment and would point out a couple of things. One, as we stated in opening debate, we very carefully looked at all the accounts in this bill and, among other things, made cuts in over 57 programs to make sure that funds were available for positive programs that make a difference in people's lives. One of those areas is in the area of energy and specifically the high cost of gasoline for consumers across the country. One of the things that we did do is to add money in this legislation, $130 million above the President's request, to provide $503 million for new vehicle technologies and for biofuels. Another area as far as the energy crisis was the change in the overall request relative to climate change and, again, funds were made available for such things as research, development and demonstration of new energy technologies in solar, geothermal, wind, hydropower, fossil and nuclear energy as well as research, development and demonstration of conservation technologies for buildings and industries as well as the deployment of energy conservation through weatherization in Federal buildings. There are a lot of very positive things that we have done in this legislation to advance a positive energy agenda. The gentlewoman's amendment would be hurtful to those efforts and I am opposed to her amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the recognition. I understand the gentlelady's concern and, with the observation that she is going to withdraw her amendment, have a number of points to make but will simply enter those into the Record. Proceeding with construction of nuclear spent fuel recycling facilities at this time is premature. Geologic capacity exists at Yucca Mountain to accommodate much more high level waste than currently permitted by legislation Spent fuel recycling is not economically viable given affordable fresh supplies of uranium fuel On-site storage of nuclear spent fuel is safe for 50 to 100 years, so there is no rush, but there could be cost savings from removing spent fuel from the nine decommissioned nuclear reactor sites. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would simply indicate that I would be happy to accept the gentlewoman's amendment and if my colleague the ranking member would have an observation, I would invite him to.

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

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, despite the eloquence and persuasiveness of my ranking member and good friend, Mr. Hobson, I remain opposed and would ask the membership to vote against the amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, as I stated earlier, there is a role and a need for the ARC to assist distressed counties in Appalachia with local economic development and to provide infrastructure requirements. Of the original 223 distressed counties, 74 remain in that category; and clearly the mission of the ARC has not yet been fully realized. The fact is the committee did reduce the administration's request for this account by $30 million and has targeted all of the funds in this bill for those distressed counties. So I would be in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, as a Notre Dame grad, I would like to interject myself into this colloquy. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his interest in this area. The gentleman is correct. The subcommittee's objection was to praise the nuclear physics communities adaptiveness in adjusting its facilities plan to our current budgetary realities. It was not meant in any way to define or alter the scope of the proposed facility or limit Michigan State's ability to compete. The subcommittee remains steadfastly committed to ensuring that DOE user facilities are subject to full and open competition and will monitor the process very closely to make sure that all potential competitors are treated fairly by DOE. Again, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding and bringing this matter up.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the Committee of Energy and Commerce.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Udall and also appreciate the fact that he has made a significant contribution to the full Appropriations Committee and also understand the circumstances that he is presented with. Contrary to what I think the belief of some Members are, we have made cuts in this bill, but they were thoughtful cuts, given a number of considerations. I would point out that the means by which the gentleman is trying to secure additional weapons money would cut the Administrator's office and potentially terminate most of the Nation's nonproliferation programs. The nuclear nonproliferation programs are one of the few activities at the Department of Energy that are staffed, managed and run by Federal employees. In the end, Federal employees tend to be generally younger professionals with fewer years of public service and would bear the brunt of any Federal reduction in force. Secondly, I wish that our national labs, which are treasures and do great work, would also be as adamant and as concerned about their security as they are about their budget line. I would ask to submit additional materials in the Record, but would point out we had serious security breaches at Los Alamos in December of 1999, June of 2000, November of 2003, May of 2004, July of 2004, in 2005, in 2006. There was an incident in January of 2007 that made Time Magazine. This has got to stop. But the breach that causes me and should cause every Member here the most heartburn is what happened to a gentleman by the name of Shawn Carpenter. Mr. Carpenter worked at Los Alamos, Mr. Carpenter was concerned about security at Los Alamos, and Mr. Carpenter went to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to express his concern. He did not go to a local newspaper. He went to the FBI, and he was terminated. There was a trial relative to that wrongful termination. And I would point out that the gentleman who fired Mr. Carpenter, and he subsequently won a judgment of $4.6 million for wrongful termination, got a bonus. He got a bonus after he fired Mr. Carpenter, and Mr. Carpenter went to the FBI to protect the secrets of this Nation as far as our nuclear security. The third concern I have is some of these moneys would find their way back into the proposal made by the administration that we have eliminated in this bill for a new nuclear weapon. As we have extensively pointed out in the committee report language, since the termination of the Cold War, since regional conflicts such as Kosovo, since 9/11, we have not developed a new nuclear strategy. This is not a time to build a new nuclear weapon. We have significant cost overruns and time overruns on three buildings we were told were needed for stockpile stewardship. None of them are done. All of them are over budget. Now let's take a turn in the road. I am adamantly opposed. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment, and would hope that at the end of this debate he consider the withdrawal of his amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I accept the gentleman's amendment. I understand his concern, as I and Mr. Hobson have grave concerns about the department's record on contracting and project management as well. This bill requires the department to develop an action plan due to Congress that will get DOE off the GAO high-risk list for their contract management performance as soon as possible, as I indicated in the previous debate, where they have been since 1990; follow its own guidelines in Management Order 413.3 for project management; and contract with the National Academy of Public Administration for a review of the departmental contracting processes, which have been a choke point of getting work done. Again, I would be pleased to accept the gentleman's amendment and the record that is established for the department to follow through on GAO's recommendation to examine the root causes of poor contract management.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would yield back my time and urge a ``no'' vote.