Peter Visclosky

Mr. VISCLOSKY

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, as with the gentleman's earlier amendment, I am not going to rise in opposition to it but would again point out an additional burden has now been placed on the Department of Energy with no additional funding for it, and just want to state that for the membership.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) yielding. Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned in my earlier remarks, I am not opposed to the gentleman's amendment but would simply point out that we are now applying an additional responsibility to the Inspector General's office and not providing any additional funds; and the fact is the funding for the Inspector General in this bill is $1.5 million less than the administration request. The final observation I would make is obviously we are dealing with the Department of Energy. The gentleman is very concerned, as we all are, about the high price of gasoline; but I do not know whether the expertise to do the best job possible in the Department of Energy resides with the Inspector General.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding and would add my voice to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, my first concern is that we have just had a vote on this floor to, essentially, increase funding for renewables by $40 million. And secondly, I do think under the NERI program we are doing very important research. We are looking to continue to improve efficiency and reliability and to reduce the cost of existing nuclear energy applications. We are looking for proliferation resistant reactors in fuels. We are looking for new reactor designs with improved safety, higher efficiency, and lower costs that would be competitive in the global market. And we are looking for new technologies for nuclear waste management and investigations into fundamental nuclear science. I do oppose the amendment put forth and would encourage my colleagues to vote against it.

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

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 Iowa (Mr. Boswell) for purposes of a colloquy. (Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would also agree. Obviously, there is no guarantee at all because the budget is so very tight. But I do appreciate the commitment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind). And as the chairman indicated, we would be happy to try to work with the gentleman.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) for purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman's concern, and particularly his concern over the health and safety of those who have worked in his district and continue to do so. I for one, and I think the gentleman from California (Chairman Packard) shares my concern, appreciate the gentleman bringing it to the committee's attention. As I indicated to the gentleman from Wisconsin, there is no guarantee in this process, except the sincerity of our efforts. And I do appreciate the gentleman's commitment very much.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen). (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise not to object to the Boehlert amendment. I will not do so, but I do think it is imperative that the House understand the situation relative to funding for the Army Corps of Engineers. A year ago on this floor, in considering the bill, we had several very serious controversies relative to wetland regulation. When the budget was sent to the United States Congress in January of this year, those rules were not yet in effect. Subsequent to that period of time, they went into effect, and the Army Corps of Engineers has estimated that the additional cost to ensure that there is no delay to developers and contractors and members of the general public would be 6 million additional dollars over and above the budget request. Those $6 million are not contained in this bill. To add further to the Corps' problem, in the subcommittee mark there were additional requirements placed on the Corps to the tune of a March 1, 2001, revised report cost analysis for a proposal to issue modified nationwide permits: to wit, by September 30, the year 2001, prepare and submit to Congress and publish in the Federal Register a permit processing management plan; to wit, beginning on December 31, 2001, at the end of each quarter thereafter, and I would acknowledge the gentleman has lengthened this to a biannual report, report to Congress and published in the Federal Register an analysis of the performance of its programs as registered against the criteria set out in the permit processing management plan; and, four, implement a 1-year pilot program to publish quarterly on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' regulatory program for the South Pacific Division. Additionally, how we compute time relative to delays that had been complained about was changed in the subcommittee mark. That was an additional burden. We then went to the full committee. The chairman of the committee offered an amendment that was ultimately adopted that further increased that burden by requiring that the Corps Division Office publish on its Web site all findings, rulings and decisions. Additionally, a provision that I do think can potentially have a chilling impact on the appellate procedure that the Corps shall allow an appellant to keep a verbatim record of the proceedings of the appeals conference under the aforementioned administrative appeals process. The gentleman has now come forth and, as I indicated, changed a quarterly reporting to biannual. That is an improvement. There were several other improvements, but it also did place another burden on the Corps by also now including the North Atlantic Division as far as those reporting requirements. So I do not object to what the gentlemen has done. He has added a burden but he has improved the legislation that was reported by the committee. The Corps does not have the money, and I would just want to emphasize I would hope at some point we have corrected that procedure so there is no delay to those who seek permits. Finally, I do think the gentleman has made one important change, and that is that we do continue the current counting period as far as when an application for a permit is considered to have been received, because my concern as expressed in the full committee, and would be here, that 12 months from now, 24 months from now when the wetlands issue is potentially debated again, people will come in and say we told you so. If it was not for those two changes in the year 2000, we would not have had this additional delay, not because of any failing of the Corps or the contractor or developer, but because we changed how those dates are computed. The gentleman in his amendment would compute them in both fashions, the previous fashion as well as the new fashion contained in the committee bill. So I did want to make sure that people understand for the record that is the situation we find ourselves in. I do not object to what he wants to do.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, is that 10 minutes per side, proponents and opponents? Mr. Chairman, there was 20 minutes total on this amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentleman is attempting to do with his amendment. I appreciate the need, and I also appreciate the comments of the Members who spoke before me. I would associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) and rise in opposition to the Hulshof amendment for three key reasons. One is we have worked very hard to wisely spend every penny of water money available in as fair a fashion as possible, and in making that money go as far as possible, we did not, in this bill, fund any new starts, any new reimbursements, any new studies. That is an arbitrary decision, but it is one that both sides have stuck to with a great deal of scrupulous care. I think at this late moment, understanding the need, coming from a Great Lakes State myself and the intercontinental United States, I would oppose, first of all, for that reason. Secondly, I am concerned that because we are taking money from one Army Corps account and moving it to another, we are simply obligating the Corps with an additional responsibility that we are not paying for with new money. The fact is, the account that the gentleman is taking the money from is at current level, there is no increase. It is $2\1/2\ million below the administration's request, and we would cut it by an additional $2 million. Finally, the obvious point, and that is that this would also then require a reduction in force at the very time when we are asking the Corps to assume greater responsibilities than ever before across the Nation. Again, it is out of no disrespect for the Member or the need of the constituents he represents or the other speakers, but I am adamantly opposed to his amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I have no other requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to set the record straight as far as the rule that is before us. The Energy and Water bill, as reported out of subcommittee, includes only the language offered in committee by the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick) that would deal with the critical issue of rising gasoline prices, and I want to make that very clear today. Why is this the case? Perhaps it is because the appropriations bill that should have been dealt with on this issue was the Interior bill. That bill passed the House on June 15 after the House rejected a proposal by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) to include funding for the Northeast home heating oil reserve, as requested by the President of the United States. The majority's interior appropriation bill did nothing to address the rising gasoline prices in this country. After their refusal to do anything in the full Committee on Appropriations, the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick) did seek a vehicle, that is this bill, the Energy and Water bill, to address the issue. I would also parenthetically add that she follows on other initiatives taken by many Members on our side of the aisle from New England, the State of Pennsylvania, and other areas, pursuant to negotiations and meetings with the President in January, in February, and other legislative initiatives. The gentlewoman from Michigan did take the lead in full committee to add a simple reauthorization for the short-term extension of the strategic petroleum reserve. If it was not for her efforts in full committee and the efforts of her Democratic cosponsors, the amendment in order by this rule would not have been germane, and it would not have been allowed to be offered today in this Chamber. In fact, the Chairman of the authorizing committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), wrote to the Committee on Rules asking that the Kilpatrick language not be protected from a point of order since it was authorizing in an appropriations bill. If the chairman of the Committee on Commerce objected so strongly to the Kilpatrick language, a simple 1-year reauthorization of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve just to get the process moving, then surely he must have even more vehemently objected to the language made in order by this rule, which goes much further. Mr. Speaker, this rule makes in order an amendment by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood) that basically duplicates language that was in the bill passed by the House a few weeks ago, the same language of the majority of the other body. So I do want to make one thing clear. We are today considering a bill with language put into it at full committee by the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the hour is late because many hours ago we started the final energy and water bill under the guidance of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard). As we all know in this Chamber, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) has served all of us, his country and his family well, both in the military service, local and Federal service. I think as we conclude consideration of a well-done work product, which we have come to expect from the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) day in and day out, that we owe the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) our appreciation and a round of applause.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, if we would also have an understanding on the Salmon amendment that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) would control 15 minutes of the 30 minutes and that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) would control the other 15 minutes?

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