Peter Visclosky

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, the water and related resources account funds Reclamation's core missions of delivering water to citizens of this country, to those who till the soil in our country, and for generating hydropower. Given the growing need for water supplies in the 17 Western States of this country, I certainly believe it is critical that the Nation invest now in water reclamation and reuse projects for the future. This account also provides very important funds for rural water supply projects for tribal and rural communities, contributing to meeting the United States' trust responsibilities to Indian reservations through the delivery of safe drinking water. I share the gentleman's concern about health programs in the United States, and I can't think of anything more important than ensuring that people in 17 different States of this country have clean water to drink. And how shortsighted it would be to cut programs that provide clean drinking water for human health, so that we can spend untold sums of money on their health care after they get sick. If you want to talk about something that is penny-wise and pound-foolish, we have found it this afternoon. This is a health amendment. If we take these moneys away, we will do a disservice to the health of the people who live in these regions. As with the Corps of Engineers, Reclamation's infrastructure is aging, and it has increasing requirements for proper and adequate maintenance of its infrastructure. But 17 States cover a large area and swath of the continent. But I'm just wondering which citizens in which communities are we going to tell we just can't help you this year because we might have accepted the gentleman's amendment. Are we going to tell people in Wichita, Kansas, the Wichita Cheney program that maybe they're not going to get all of their money? Are we going to tell people at Lakehead, Nevada that well, we had to make a cut of $55 million, and you're just not going to have the resources you need? Or people in Oregon for the Crooked River project, are we going to tell them well, there's just not enough money now? Are we going to, in the State of Colorado, tell people in Pine River that we had to make a cut? In Texas, are we going to tell people for the Canadian River project that there just wasn't enough money to go around, or at Moon Lake in the State of Utah that we're sorry, Congress dropped the ball? Or for the Colombia River Basin project, that somehow there was a shortfall in us meeting our responsibilities? The gentleman's correct. This is a health amendment. This is clean drinking water for people who live in 17 States in the United States of America provided through infrastructure that is aging. We have a responsibility to invest in that, and that is why I'm strongly opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman from New York yielding, and would simply reference the last speaker's assertion about pet projects and referencing those to the projects that I enumerated in my remarks. The fact is, I was enumerating projects on page 42 of the committee report, and 43 on the committee report, and page 44 on the committee report, and page 45 on the committee report that were submitted by the President of the United States.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I would like to actually talk about the bill, and I would like to talk about the underlying merits of what Mr. Hobson and I and the members of the subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee have tried to do. In this particular title, we are talking about the Bureau of Reclamation, and we are talking about people's health and well-being. Part of that does include the wise stewardship of the moneys that are provided. From the debate that has taken place today, you would think that the only thing we are worried about is spending money and worried about the quantity of the money that we are spending as opposed to the quality of the underlying act and the work that the agencies do. And I would draw, Mr. Chairman, my colleague's attention to page 48 of the report that goes into great detail, and I am going to read it. The gentleman has an amendment before us to cut $1.236 million from the bill. And the fact is, over the last several years our subcommittee, under the leadership of then-Chairman Hobson, as well as myself, have done everything possible to make sure that the moneys being spent by the Bureau of Reclamation are being spent wisely. And I read from the report. ``In fiscal year 2006, the Committee directed the Department of Interior to submit, with its fiscal year 2007 budget request, a detailed 5-year budget plan for each of the major budget components, including water and related resources, California Bay Delta Restoration program, Central Valley Project Restoration Fund, and Central Utah Project Completion.'' Because the concern of the subcommittee then, and as it is as of this moment, is that the public's moneys are being spent with quality as well. ``The Department subsequently informed the Committee that it would be unable to provide a 5-year plan for fiscal year 2007 and intended to make the initial submission with the fiscal year 2008 request. The Bureau failed to make that submission either, and now informs the Committee that the 5-year plan will be submitted at some undefined time in the future.'' The patience of the subcommittee, the patience of the Appropriations Committee is not without limit. And as a result, in the report language we note the Committee's extreme frustration with the Bureau's inability to provide a 5-year budget plan, the act contains a provision that transfers $10 million, not $1.236 million, but $10 million from policy and administration to water and related resources if the 5-year plan is not submitted within 60 days of date of enactment. We are certainly not afraid to move moneys around, and in this case, to the tune of $10 million, if the good judgment of this committee is not abided by. So I would emphasize that this is not just a matter of quantity of money, it is quality of money. And that is what we are about. That is why I am adamantly opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I appreciate what the gentleman wants to do. We certainly share a concern about global warming. We also share a desire to ensure that we have a viable nuclear industry in the near term as well as the long term. Where there would be a difference of opinion is the balance that needs to be struck in this legislation to accomplish both of those goals. I would point out that the legislation that has been reported to the House has done everything possible to ensure that the nuclear industry can move forward. For example, we have fully funded the President's request for $494 million for Yucca Mountain to make sure that they can meet their deadline for the submission of a license for the waste repository in June of 2008. The industry clearly needs the repository. The House bill includes $167.8 million for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, something that I think the gentleman would agree is critically necessary as far as the licensing procedures in the shorter term. This is a $17.1 million increase over the administration's request, more than 10 percent more. And I would point out that in the continuing resolution for fiscal year 2007, this was one of the few accounts that this subcommittee specifically also increased. We also include $15 million within the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for nuclear engineering scholarships that were proposed for termination by the administration, because if we do not have new, bright talent in those educational facilities under scholarship, we are not going to have a future. And we did include moneys for Nuclear Power 2010. It is the same level as the current fiscal year. I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that this is a direct payment to utilities undergoing the NRC license process and no other sector of the energy portion of this country receives this type of Federal assistance. The gentleman would take the money from Generation IV nuclear energy systems by having the moneys reduced. I would point out that the subcommittee went to great lengths to increase moneys for Generation IV. We are supportive of the light water reactors that are going to be coming online in the near term. We want to make sure we have that next generation of reactors online as well for the future, one that can not only provide electrical industry to our Nation that is needed but also potentially produce the hydrogen for the new economy we are looking for. We have provided those moneys and would not want to see them cut. Additionally, we had a debate and conversation earlier today about the mixed oxide program that previously had been designated a nonproliferation item. We have correctly moved it into the Energy Department as far as their accounts and would point out that $689 million between unobligated balances, between the spending for '07 and between what is included in this bill, is included for MOX. So we have been more than generous, and I also think we have struck the right balance to ensure that we do have an industry starting up in the near term and one that has a long-term, safe future for the generation of energy in this country.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio yielding. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to respond to the question raised. First of all I would point out that the funds that are provided are at this year's fiscal level. It is not a cut. It is a cut from the President's request. The other observation I would make is I believe that the Department should be in the business of science research and development and not exclusively be paying for companies to license new reactors, so that would certainly do justification.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And if the gentleman from Ohio would yield, I would be happy to respond.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would point out that there was a $70 million increase, and I would not want to engage in quibbling as to whether it is a second, third or fourth generation, but do believe there is a strong public purpose for demonstrating the commercial viability of the thermal-neutron gas reactor for the very purposes that the gentleman is concerned about and that I share his concern, that is, climate change and global warming and energy sources, where we can generate the electricity in this country as well as potentially produce hydrogen. We ought to start down that road sooner rather than later, and again in a balanced fashion along with 2010.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlelady's concern about research for nuclear energy in the future. I also appreciate the courtesy as far as her willingness to withdraw the amendment. The concern that the committee had is that the administration came in originally with a $405 million request. During hearings, the administration also suggested that all $405 million was for just research. The concern we have, and I mentioned it in my opening remarks during general debate, is contract management at the Department of Energy. And certainly it's not the fault of the gentlelady's, and I know she shares our concern, but there is a very bad track record at the Department of Energy; and the fact is they have been on a high-risk watch list for the General Accountability Office since the year 1990. I would point out that the committee learned that the Department of Energy's use of technology readiness levels in the global nuclear energy partnership technology development plan does not apply readiness in the manner consistent with the recommendations in the General Accountability Office report of March of this year. So, looking ahead as far as potentially incurring huge long-term costs on behalf of the taxpayers, we have suggested that the administration take a step back, continue to do very necessary and very vital research, but let us take all deliberate speed as opposed to a rush to judgment and oppose her amendment, and I appreciate her consideration in withdrawing it.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, and would observe for the House that, again, I am not in total disagreement with some of the assertions and points that he has made. The fact is, there is no silver bullet as far as solving the energy problems we face today and in the future. He is absolutely correct. That is why the subcommittee has significantly increased funding for biofuels. That's why the subcommittee significantly increased funding for vehicle technology. That's why the subcommittee increased funding for other types of renewables. The gentleman references solar and wind, for example. That's why there's an increase in the hydrogen account. That's why there's an increase as far as maximization of power produced with hydroelectric facilities. And so what we're trying to do is to strike a balance, and again getting back to my earlier comments about quantity and quality, we are concerned and spoke about it in the bill language, as well as the report language, about the fossil fuel program. I certainly, for one, absolutely believe that we need to do more on the issue of capturing CO2, and we have done that in this bill. We need to do more as far as in sequestration of that particular gas, but we have to do it intelligently. The fact is, a FutureGen program that has been initiated under the Department of Energy, from my perspective, took a very bad turn in the road as people continue to look at adding bells and whistles, and we had a colloquy on that particular issue earlier in the day as well. I would point out that FutureGen, according to the committee report, needs to be refocused as an integrated gasification combined cycle plant with carbon capture and sequestration and drop the ambiguity of other, less critical research components. The committee believes that by streamlining the design to demonstrate these factors, critical goals can be reached in a more timely and fiscally prudent fashion. So what we're trying to do in the bill is to have a broad range of new energy sources accelerated through increased funding. We have done that with fossil but have not done so blindly. We want to make sure that that money is spent wisely, given the fact that nearly 50 percent of this country's electricity is generated today by coal-powered plants. I absolutely believe that we should pursue this research and would reluctantly oppose the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 2641 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 481, notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the bill may be offered except: Pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate; An amendment by Mr. Forbes regarding a study of certain river basins; An amendment by Mr. Wynn regarding hydrogen research; An amendment by Mr. Hensarling regarding funding for DOE Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability; An amendment by Mr. Shadegg regarding funding for hydropower incentives; An amendment by Mr. Porter regarding Yucca Mountain; An amendment by Mr. Price of Georgia regarding funding for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative; An amendment by Mr. Burgess regarding funding for fossil energy; An amendment by Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico regarding funding for medical imaging; An amendment by Mr. Upton or Mr. Towns regarding funding for nuclear energy loan guarantees; An amendment by Mr. Hensarling regarding funding for DOE Departmental Administration; An amendment by Mr. Matheson regarding funding for contract oversight; An amendment by Mrs. Tauscher regarding weapons dismantlement activities; An amendment by Mr. Udall of New Mexico regarding funding for weapons activities; An amendment by Mrs. Schmidt regarding a prohibition on Global Nuclear Energy Partnership funds for certain nuclear waste storage; An amendment by Mr. Space regarding funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission; An amendment by Mr. Neugebauer regarding funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission; An amendment by Mr. Hensarling regarding funding for the Denali Commission; An amendment by Ms. Berkley limiting use of funds for the Yucca Mountain Youth Website educational campaign; An amendment by Mr. Bishop of New York, Mr. Courtney, or Ms. DeLauro limiting use of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission funds to review a particular application; An amendment by Mr. Conaway regarding use of reductions made through amendments for deficit reduction; An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa regarding actions to mitigate global warming; An amendment by Mr. Murphy of Connecticut limiting use of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission funds for certain permit actions; An amendment by Mrs. Musgrave regarding an across-the-board reduction in funding; An amendment by Mr. Price of Georgia regarding an across-the-board reduction in funding, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes; An amendment by Mr. Upton or Ms. Harman regarding use of Energy Star certified light bulbs; An amendment by Mr. Shadegg limiting use of funds to breach or remove hydropower dams; An amendment by Mr. Hinchey or Mr. Wolf limiting use of funds for designation of transmission corridors, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes; An amendment by Mr. Gohmert limiting use of funds for a certain settlement regarding the National Resources Defense Council; An amendment by Mr. Campbell of California reducing funds in the bill, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes; An amendment by Mr. Campbell of California reducing funds in the bill, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes; An amendment by Mr. Obey regarding earmarks; An amendment by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey limiting the use of funds for international conferences; An amendment by Mr. Hobson limiting use of funds for the Mental Illness and Neuroscience Discovery Institute in New Mexico; and An amendment or amendments by Mr. Visclosky regarding funding levels. Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member named in this request or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment except that the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations and the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate; and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. Except as otherwise specified, each amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. An amendment shall be considered to fit the description stated in this request if it addresses in whole or in part the object described.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. My understanding is there would be an additional UC, a unanimous consent request, or a new rule for the supplemental report that would come up.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. My understanding is that we would agree to a UC.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. That's fine. Yes, sir.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment would eliminate all nondefense funding for Yucca Mountain. High-level radioactive waste exists in over 38 States. I believe it is irresponsible to leave it where it is forever, and it is essential to have a repository where it can be safely left for up to a million years while the radioactivity decays away. This waste comes from maintaining our nuclear weapons stockpile and from spent fuel from civilian nuclear reactors that generate 20 percent of all electricity in the United States. Yucca was chosen by Congress in 1982 as a permanent geological repository for high-level waste and billions have been spent to characterize the site and prepare for licensing and construction. Failure to open Yucca Mountain and take custody of commercial spent nuclear fuel will cost the taxpayers over $7 billion by 2017 when the repository could open. Cutting funding and delaying the filing of a license application by only a year will simply exacerbate the problem and increase this cost by more than a half billion dollars. Failure to proceed with a reasonable approach to disposing of spent nuclear fuel will cause the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to stop licensing new nuclear reactors and extending the licenses of existing plants. Every new and extended license must satisfy the waste confidence clause. So this amendment will constrain our ability to grow our economy without emitting any more greenhouse gasses. In the coming years, it will choke off nearly 20 percent of U.S. electricity generated by nuclear power plants. And, again, we have tried to strike a very reasoned balance in this bill as far as funding for the repository and other programs to initiate a sound nuclear industry in the short term, and I am opposed to the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. How much time remains on both sides?

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I will assure the gentlewoman that I do, and I will.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I thank the gentleman for his passionate support of the domestic automotive industry and appreciate the industry's effect on the national economy because I have a strong manufacturing presence in my district. Technology development is vital to the success of the manufacturing sector, and Congress should continue its support of R&D. I also thank the gentleman for his acknowledgment of our budget constraints. The subcommittee will be happy to work with him and the rest of our colleagues as we work our way through conference.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman's comments, and I thank the gentleman for his concern about this important topic. I agree with him that advanced battery research and development is essential in our goals to increase energy efficiency and reduce emissions. That is why we have included an additional $10 million over the President's request in this bill for advanced battery R&D.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I recognize the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for a unanimous consent request. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), a member of the subcommittee, for 3 minutes.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for 1\1/2\ minutes.