Peter Visclosky

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would rise in opposition, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, can I ask a parliamentary inquiry, please.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. It would be my understanding that on this particular amendment, because I have moved to strike the last word per the Chair's suggestion, that I can only speak once on the amendment?

Mr. VISCLOSKY. As opposed to rising in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by Mr. Westmoreland. First of all, he did indicate that he was concerned about reinvestigations. I would simply indicate to my colleagues that the world changes every day, and there are times when we need to reassess the circumstances so that we can spend the taxpayers' dollars as wisely as possible. The fact is that the Nation's investment in our water resources infrastructure has declined over the last three decades, from $6 billion per year to less than $4 billion in constant dollars. If the tragedy in New Orleans has taught us anything, I hope it is that we have neglected our infrastructure. If the suffering of the residents in the gulf doesn't illustrate the point, simple fiscal prudence should. The cost of recovery in New Orleans will far exceed what it would have cost to provide additional flood and storm protection. There are large cities that face high and increasing risk of catastrophic flooding. Sacramento is just one example. We have high-hazard dams with safety issues. There are countless communities that do not have flood protection commensurate with the risk to those communities. Much of our infrastructure is reaching its design life. Over 50 percent of the locks and dams owned by the Corps of Engineers are in this category. Aging infrastructure brings increasing costs, yet the funding for accounts at the Army Corps for this particular function have been flat over the last 30 years. Circumstances have changed from the time much of our infrastructure has been designed, development patterns have changed, transportation networks and requirements have evolved. Yet we are not investing enough today to maintain what we already own or complete projects that are in progress today, much less plan for the future needs for the safety of our citizens and economic viability of our transportation system. Due to insufficient funding, schedules are slipping and costs are growing, as we piecemeal these projects, if we do not act in a timely fashion. There is a significant and growing backlog of civil works projects. Current estimates are as high as $60 billion. Funding for studies and investigations must be adequately funded so that we can proceed with these very important projects. And given the backlog in construction projects, the funding for investigations account is less than the current year. The bill focuses funding on completing ongoing projects and maintaining existing infrastructure. However, it is very important, obviously, to plan for the future. I would ask that my colleagues oppose the amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I want to thank the distinguished gentleman for bringing this to the attention of the committee. He is correct, it has been a subject of our hearing process as well. For some time now the committee has been concerned that the Corps' regulatory process is not being undertaken in an expeditious manner. I want to assure the gentleman and all of my colleagues that we on the subcommittee have every intention of helping him bring greater transparency and efficiency to the Army Corps' regulatory process, both in terms of your particular concerns, as well as those nationwide.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman raising the issue. There is a theme in the last two colloquies, and it's a regulatory process. I certainly agree with the gentleman that the Corps' regulatory program needs to do a better job meeting its deadlines, especially with regard to section 404 permits under the newly issued guidance. The gentleman's concerns are very timely, and they are warranted. I assure him that the subcommittee will work hard to address this issue as the bill moves to conference.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, but I don't disagree with everything he has enunciated in his defense of his position. The two previous speakers before the gentleman talked about red tape and delay in the regulatory process with Army Corps. I would assume that every member of this subcommittee has had those meetings with the Corps, and we are certainly trying to rectify that problem on the theory that the sooner projects can be completed, the more benefit will enure to the taxpayers of this country and its citizens. The gentleman's also right to enumerate the large backlog that we have on construction and other Corps facilities in this country, and that is one of the things that we are trying to address in this bill. I would point out that the approach that we have taken, not just for the fiscal year 2008 bill, but in the last several years under the leadership of then-Chairman Hobson, was to make sure that we face the challenges of the future in a very disciplined and rigorous approach that encompasses a broader context. The bill continues the financial management contractor reforms to ensure that the Corps manages its budget to the best interest of the taxpayers. The recommendations include direction that the Corps continues to take action in considering additional factors as they proceed in the planning process. And again, it has been the custom of this subcommittee in designing and structuring bills for the last several years to look at projects and marshal our resources so that some are completed, as opposed to bumbling on forever. And I wouldn't argue with the gentleman about that concern. We have, again, done that in this bill to make sure that those additional construction dollars that the gentleman seeks to remove from the bill are put to good and rigorous use. And I would point out that this is not an abstraction. This goes to the core of people's health and safety. Two floods ago, on the little Calumet River in Northwest Indiana, we had a gentleman in Highland, Indiana, lose his life. He was only one life in one flood. But for that man, and for his family, and for that community, it was a tragedy. We are constructing a flood control project that insures that that never happens again. That's why we have flood control programs in the city of Dallas and its vicinities, to make sure that when you have significant events, as we have had this week in the State of Texas, that you do not have loss of life and, hopefully, you can diminish the loss of property. We have huge commercial centers, ports like Long Beach, ports like the city of New York, ports like Baltimore, up and down our coast. We want to make sure that the commerce of this country moves as efficiently as possible, so that our economy grows and we can provide good paying jobs for all of our residents. We have a State capitol in the most populous State in this country, Sacramento, California, one dike a way from a catastrophic event as far as the loss of human life and the destruction of properties. Those are the types of projects, and those are the types of priorities that we are attempting to get at in this bill. And that's why these moneys are set aside, and would be opposed to their removal from this bill.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I again would reference some of his words where he indicated that $18 million is no small sum of money. It is a very significant sum of money, and I would agree with him. It is a significant sum of money, and it is very important to the programs that comprise the Mississippi River and Tributaries Program. And my concern is, if you would, carving out a particular geographic region for this particular cut and would emphasize that while it is but one geographic region and water system within our country, there are consequences of the amendments because channel improvement programs in Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee would be affected. There are levees for the Mississippi River in States like Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee. There is a flood waste system in the State of Louisiana, and there are operation and maintenance costs. These are all significant and important programs dealing, again, with the priority of people's health and safety, the movement of commerce, and the protection of property. I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member, Mr. Hobson, in opposition to the amendment.

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

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding. And I want to acknowledge that we in Congress authorized the loan guarantee program for advanced technology that addresses clean air and climate concerns. The Federal Credit Reform Act explicitly states that loan obligations can only be made to the extent there is an affirmative action on the part of the Appropriations Committee. The Federal Credit Reform Act provides that new direct loan obligations may be incurred and new loan guarantee commitments may be made for fiscal year 1992 and thereafter only to the extent that, one, new budget authority is provided in an appropriations act; and, two, a limitation on the use of funds for the cost of a loan guarantee has been ``provided in an appropriations act''; or, three, ``authority is otherwise provided in appropriations acts.'' However, it is the implementation of this program that has raised the concerns of the committee. Our fiscal year 2008 bill does not provide loan guarantees for the nuclear industry. The request for guaranteed loans from the Nuclear Energy Association, subsidized by the Federal Government, is very large. It overwhelms what the bill provides for the entire energy community. The administration had asked for a total of $4 billion for the nuclear energy industry and the coal industry. This does not come close to what the Nuclear Energy Association has indicated they need. The Nuclear Energy Association indicates a need for $25 billion in Federal guaranteed loans for fiscal year 2008 and more than that in fiscal year 2009. The ``system,'' meaning the DOE loan guarantee infrastructure, cannot accommodate a request of this size at this time. I would also point out that the fiscal year 2006 joint continuing resolution included $4 billion in Incentives For Innovative Technology loan guarantees for the Department of Energy to execute, without defining which technologies to target. The Congress did not limit the use of this initial $4 billion for nuclear projects. The administration chose not to make these loans available to the nuclear community. I believe in the ``go slow approach.'' We should take all deliberate speed for the new DOE programs. I recommend this approach to the Congress on this one based on my continuing concerns about how DOE has managed it to date. I am, however, open to new information about the industry's plan for innovative technology deployment and discussion about how DOE can implement the program. I pledge to work with the gentleman to see if we can come to an agreeable solution.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) be allowed to offer her amendment at this time.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the recognition, and simply rise to accept the gentlelady's amendment. This has been a collaborative effort. And I would want to also congratulate the gentlewoman from California and all of her subcommittee members for their very good and strong leadership in rationalizing the nuclear weapons complex and bolstering the nuclear nonproliferation programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration. The fact is, the gentlelady in particular has exercised great leadership in the issues of nonproliferation, making sure we have an appropriate and rationalized weapons complex, and that again, we are very deliberative as far as what the long-term nuclear policy of this country is. And again, I also appreciate her very early interjection into the work of this subcommittee, and her cooperation as well as her staff's cooperation. And again, it is my pleasure, on behalf of the subcommittee, to accept her amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I want to thank Mr. Green for bringing to the committees's attention and my attention the need for adequate funding of these invaluable technologies.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I thank the gentleman for bringing the work of this lab to the attention of the House and to the committee. I certainly will want to work with the gentleman on his concerns.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania who serves as my partner on the Congressional Steel Caucus, we have other things in common, including my district abutting the Great Lakes, in my case Lake Michigan, for rising on this issue on the floor today. It is an important one. The gentleman has my commitment that, especially knowing the challenges facing the Great Lakes region firsthand, that the subcommittee will make every effort to provide adequate resources to the Army Corps of Engineers for construction projects and also help the gentleman provide sufficient resources to the beach nourishment at Presque Isle.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment and would note that the gentleman from Wisconsin in his earlier remarks used the term ``slush fund.'' I would note that a slush fund connotes a fund raised by a group for corrupt practices as bribery or graft. I'm certain that the gentleman didn't mean to imply that. Slush fund can also mean money once raised by the sale of garbage from a warship to buy small items of luxury for the crew. I'm sure the gentleman didn't mean that, either. A slush fund can also mean a fund used by a group of office workers for entertainment, but I don't think the gentleman meant that. A slush fund could also be a fund raised for undesignated purposes. I would not be so presumptuous as to speak for the gentleman from Wisconsin, but I assume that was the import of his remarks, and in this case that would also be an incorrect assertion. The subcommittee worked very hard for the first 6 months of this year to assess what the investment needs are for the United States of America, its citizens and its economic future. As I have mentioned earlier, and we had graphics to support the assertion, we have an aging infrastructure in the United States of America. Anyone who is on the roads, anyone who travels by air, anyone who travels by rail, anyone who travels on water understands that. And today we are particularly concerned about the aging water infrastructure. I for one, and I believe all of the members of the subcommittee, am very concerned that much of the infrastructure in place as far as operation and maintenance is past its designed life. That pertains to almost half of the locks and dams in this country. We have not dredged many of our harbors, whether they be for recreation, which is an economic purpose as well, or for commerce to their authorized depths, let alone to the depths needed to ensure that they can operate effectively and cost efficiently, and this work must be done. What we have created here is an investment fund for operation and maintenance, and I for one am proud that we have increased in that account more moneys to invest in the economic prosperity of our country, whether it pertain to navigation channels, locks and dams, or other water infrastructure. I would ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment because I believe the actions we have taken in the subcommittee will save the American taxpayers' money. I would first note that all A-76 studies performed by the Corps of Engineers have been won by Corps employees. So the first question is: Why do it? The Corps is working under also an arbitrary numerical quota to review certain numbers of jobs in certain time periods without research and analysis. It would suggest that this is an arbitrary requirement put into place by the Office of Management and Budget, and there is a doubt, at least in this Member's mind, that it has been subjected to analysis at OMB. I also believe that historically there has been opposition in this body to privatization. That has been bipartisan. I would point out that from a monetary standpoint, that the cost of these studies often exceeds the benefits; and of those functions that are easily contracted out, the remainder are difficult to separate into contractible and governmental function groups. The fact is that the committee recommendation allows the Corps to continue with high-performing organization studies which follow the same study process, with similar results, without incurring the additional time and costs associated with contracting competitions. So what we would want to do is to use those high-performing organization studies, apply less cost to the taxpayers and to move this process along. I am opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Would the gentleman yield? I have an inquiry of the Chair.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Is it correct to reference people watching House proceedings on television, or are we not supposed to do that?