Peter Visclosky

Mr. VISCLOSKY

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's yielding. First of all, I would express my opposition to the amendment being offered by the gentleman from Arizona. We have an authorized activity and the subcommittee has earmarked this project. I have a philosophical difference with the approach that the Member has taken, as a Member of the House of Representatives, because we are a co-equal branch of the United States Government, and the last time I looked at the budget of this country was in excess of some trillions of dollars. The gentleman mentioned catastrophic failures. I would mention that the administration spent a great deal of money in their budget request on about 10,000 trailers in response to a great natural crisis. Those trailers are sitting out in the middle of Arkansas. The chairman of the committee talked about Hanford. That was not an earmark, but it was requested by the administration. If this committee and all of the members of this committee did not continue as we do every day to exercise oversight and deliberate activity and judgment, they would still be spending more of the taxpayers' hard-earned moneys than is necessary. There is under construction in the State of California, and I don't mean to single them out, but the gentleman mentioned catastrophic failures, the National Ignition Facility that some years ago was on time and under budget. It was an administration request. We are not defunct of all wisdom. The administration is not. There is a balance to be struck; and in a budget in excess of some trillions of dollars I do believe this subcommittee, under this chairman and the Members on it, have made wise and reasoned and specific decisions. I am adamantly opposed to the amendment offered by the gentleman.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I have made my statement to the House.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman yielding and would associate myself with his remarks and add my voice and objection to the amendment being offered. The fact is our committee does a great job at oversight. And as the chairman mentioned in his opening statement, we held a series of hearings dedicated to oversight. As he points out, you do have offices of inspectors general, and we do have a very competent staff, and we do exercise a great deal of care. So I do join the chairman and appreciate his yielding.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman and join him in his objection. I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman and my great friend from Colorado, but this is a very carefully worked bill, very carefully crafted bill, and decisions have been made that are discrete on a project-by-project basis, and I do not think it is correct policy to simply then have an across-the-board cut regardless of what the amount is and would join my chairman in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. The gentleman from Michigan is correct to bring this issue up. The regulations that determine dredging in the Great Lakes need to be updated and reflect the true economic value that they produce. The Great Lakes are the fourth sea coast of this Nation and home to the U.S. Flag fleet and the Canadian Flag fleet. In addition, dozens of international vessels regularly travel through the Great Lakes, visiting port communities along the way. These vessels team up to haul upwards of 125 million tons of cargo during a typical 10-month shipping season. That is almost a half of ton for every person in the United States of America. I truly thank the gentleman for highlighting this inequity and certainly assure him that we will continue to work closely with the chairman to rectify this problem.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the chairman's observation.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would yield a portion of my time to the chairman of the committee.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that Mr. Gordon's entire statement be entered into the Congressional Record.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) I offer an amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment that has been offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts. He mentioned multiple solutions. The fact is we have a waste problem. As I pointed out in my general remarks, last year the Congress voted again to move ahead to provide funds to pursue a competitive process for choosing sites for integrative reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel as well as interim storage. The fact is the chairman and I and the subcommittee are committed to pursuing Yucca Mountain. That is not enough. If we are to have a nuclear industry and to have an investment in our energy future, we also have to examine options to reduce waste. That is what we are about. I also believe that the subcommittee has taken a very thoughtful approach, and people have only to look at pages of committee report language that is very explicit in detail relative to the concerns and observations we have made relative to the GNEP proposal that the administration has put forth. So we are trying to solve an energy problem dealing with our energy future. I would oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's concern and very good work.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the Chair rising, and I appreciate his concern which he has continually expressed to me on this issue, and also I would want to be heard because I absolutely agree with the position the gentlewoman has taken. Asian carp have been found in the Illinois River, which connects the Mississippi River to Lake Michigan. To prevent the carp from entering the Great Lakes, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the EPA and State of Illinois, the International Joint Commission and others are working together and have installed a permanent electric barrier between the fish and Lake Michigan. Unfortunately, the first barrier or nonpermanent barrier has been shut down. I believe we should keep both open and running. However, the fix would be legislating on an appropriations bill and would not be appropriate at this point. Mr. Chairman, I do join the chairman and fully support the gentlewoman's intent to solve this problem. I appreciate your bringing it again to our attention.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the recognition and would explain the amendment to the membership. As I indicated in my opening remarks, I fully support the committee's bill. The chairman and members of the committee have done an excellent job. But we do not have the sufficient resources represented in the legislation. My amendment would provide $1 billion additional, $750 million of which would be dedicated to programs at the Department of Energy, $250 million of which would be dedicated to water projects throughout the United States of America. As I mentioned in my statement to the full committee when this legislation was being considered, when John Kennedy was President of the United States, almost 70 cents out of every $1 spent by the Federal Government was appropriated by the Appropriations Committee, and we made an investment in our economic infrastructure. We made an investment in our society. We made an investment in our future. Today, less than 30 cents out of every $1 spent by the Federal Government is appropriated dollars, and we are failing in that investment responsibility. The amendment I would offer would enhance the quality of the bill before us by doubling funding for biofuels and biorefineries. It would provide for clean coal programs. It would restore funding for petroleum, natural gas, geothermal technology programs, increase support for developing a full range of conservation technologies and help weatherize an additional 30,000 homes next year to provide immediate energy savings. We would also again provide $250 million to accelerate needed programs for flood control measures and also operation and maintenance. I also believe that, unfairly, we have borrowed too much too long in this country and have burdened the next generation with the cost of that borrowing, and therefore, the amendment would be paid for by reducing the tax cut provided to the wealthiest in society in 2001, so that the amendment is also paid for. I do think we need to make an investment in this society, and my amendment would do so. I would hope that the point of order is not sustained. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I would like to follow up on the chairman's remarks. Plutonium, highly enriched uranium and some highly radioactive products of nuclear fission in the hands of terrorists pose the greatest threat to the United States and its people. Accordingly, the recommendation before the committee increases funding for those elements of defense nuclear nonproliferation at DOE that truly address this issue. This bill correctly shifts money that should not be spent on MOX plants to other areas where the funds can be used now to enhance U.S. security. The Russians will not proceed with their MOX plant unless it is fully funded by other countries in the G-8 at a cost of $2.5 billion. Pledges to date have not passed $800 million. The Russians have stressed to the chairman, as he has pointed out, and myself that they are still fully committed to destroying 34 metric tons of their surplus plutonium. To do so, they are interested in pursuing less expensive approaches in partnership with us and funding 50 percent of the cost themselves. When it comes to energy policy, the committee's allocation forces our bill to be hundreds of millions of dollars below needed levels. While I applaud the significant increases for biofuels and solar, even in these areas, the budget forces choices between pursuing rapid commercialization of current technology and demonstrating new ones. With the support of Chairman Hobson, conservation technology investments were increased in the full committee resulting in full funding for solid-state lighting, one of the most promising technologies for saving energy; and for the request of the Governor's Ethanol Coalition for development of E-85 infrastructure. However, I remain concerned that the Clean Coal Power Initiative will have to wait one or more additional years before issuing its next solicitation for research proposals. The Department of Energy has argued that it is too late to include new technologies in the FutureGen demonstration plant, but given the abundance of domestic coal as an energy source, I believe we will be seeking new technologies to improve our use of coal for many years to come. Our country needs a robust mix of energy sources so that we can adapt rapidly to changes in the world's markets. We as a Nation can innovate our way out of the current energy crisis, but I fear that we are letting a false sense of economy prevent this from happening at the pace required. Last year, in an effort to move the country forward in developing nuclear power as a domestic source of energy that does not emit greenhouse gases, the Congress provided funds to pursue a competitive process for choosing sites for the integrated reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, including interim storage. We as a subcommittee also worked to accelerate the opening of the Yucca Mountain permanent high- level radioactive waste repository, but without success. The administration has responded with a Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or GNEP, and I would like to emphasize the concerns about GNEP expressed in our committee's report. I do not know whether GNEP will truly help the future of nuclear power. I do know that any benefits from GNEP for the American people are 15 years or more in the future, but the benefits to the DOE labs, whose directors came to Washington for a recent Senate event, might be very immediate. I appreciate the chairman's supporting a restrained funding level for this program that will provide funds for work to refine the ideas included in the GNEP concept. I believe that the level in this bill is the correct level and will oppose any efforts to make further cuts in this area. Our subcommittee will work with the authorizing committees to ensure that the costs and plans for dealing with the waste that GNEP will generate are understood and are accounted for. Members should note that the bill requires DOE to submit its GNEP plans to peer review by the National Academy of Science and the National Academy of Engineering. One cannot discuss the issues of spent nuclear fuel and other nuclear waste without reiterating that Yucca Mountain is essential as a permanent high-level radioactive waste repository. We must continue to support its opening and not give up, even though its opening has been delayed until at least 2017. Through GNEP, we may redefine the waste stream in the future. The character of much of the waste may change, and change so as to lessen the long-term radioactive activity of the waste. But we have today waste of known character awaiting permanent disposal. Of course, I speak of the waste generated by the creation and maintenance of our nuclear deterrent, a deterrent from which we have all benefited. Last year's cuts to the science account at DOE were estimated to reduce support for 2,200 researchers. This year's funding will increase support for 2,600 researchers. This type of oscillation, however, does not attract bright minds to the research areas DOE sponsors, and a new increase of only 400 researchers over 2 years is hardly a major step forward. But it is a step forward, and I would stress to my colleagues and to the administration that further major increases will be required to support the physical sciences at the level befitting our Nation and its desire for continued economic growth and world leadership. The bill provides for more staff at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to enable it to handle an anticipated increase in license applications for new nuclear plants. I also foresee additional regulatory responsibilities for the NRC. For example, I see the need for NRC to become involved in issues of nuclear safety at the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant. At many sites, the Department of Energy self-regulates on nuclear safety, and I consider this a foolish approach, even when the Department has the best of intentions. We do not let the private sector self-regulate in matters of nuclear safety, and we should end this practice at DOE as soon as is practical. So I think you can see how many critical areas for our Nation are included within the scope of the energy and water bill. Again, despite the funding limitations imposed upon the subcommittee, I take comfort from the many excellent decisions embodied in it and from the good that will be accomplished by the people's money we provide for these many programs. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to let my colleagues know what a privilege it is to work with Mr. Hobson on the critical issues included in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill. Mr. Hobson is a superb chairman, and I deeply appreciate his vision and even-handed approach to the work of our subcommittee. I also deeply appreciate the splendid work done by each member of the subcommittee. We have an exceptional membership. I also would want to acknowledge the fine staff that supports both the majority and the minority: Kevin Cook, Taunja Berquam, Scott Burnison, Terry Tyborowski, Tracey LaTurner, Dixon Butler, Kenny Kraft, Tony Digiovanni, Debbie Willis and Peder Maarbjerg of my staff. These are all exceptional individuals, and I would point out to the general membership that we will lose Peder Maarbjerg who is my associate staff. He has done not only fine work for myself but for the last several years made an exceptional contribution to the committee and to this country with his very good work. The bill itself does a good job of allocating scarce resources for sustaining the water infrastructure of our country, maintenance of our strategic deterrent, protecting our Nation from nuclear terrorism, continuing U.S. research leadership, particularly in the physical sciences, and developing energy technology to help us reverse a growing dependence on imported oil. I will be joining my chairman in support of the bill. Last year should have served as a major eye-opener as regards the protection of our communities and fellow citizens from the ravages of flooding. Hurricane Katrina may come to rank with the 1927 Mississippi flood as a seminal event in the corps' long history. The corps' responsibilities are multiple, and we should remember that. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a tool in our hands, and we must make good use of it and keep it sharp. Last year, the Energy and Water Appropriations Act began a major program of reforming the financial practices of the corps. This year, we try to continue that process; and I hope that no one will hamper that effort by striking section 102 of the bill. As usual, there are unintended consequences of such a major reform; and this has been a particular concern of those Members whose projects could not use appropriated funds in past years but are now ready to go and look for restoration of these funds. The bill makes a start at solving this problem by allocating $55 million specifically to fund repayment of donor projects. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller) for purposes of a colloquy with the chairman.