Peter Visclosky

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce DOE's Office of Administration by over $27 million. The bill provides $304 million, a decreased amount under the President's request. The Departmental Administration account funds the guts of the Department; the chief financial officer, human resources, the general counsel, the chief information officer, all are integral to the functioning of the $25 billion operation of the Department of Energy. What I am particularly concerned about relative to the gentlewoman's amendment is that the bill has initiatives that would not be funded as a result of the reductions. There are funds provided in this bill for additional legal counsel to expedite energy efficiency standards for appliances. There has been a significant accumulation of backlog for this work. We can expedite this work and save energy in this country. The bill also funds a review by the National Academy of Public Administration for the contracting in human resources process. Mentioned yesterday during debate, the Department of Energy has been on a high-risk list with the GAO for 17 years. The purpose of the subcommittee of having the National Academy of Public Administration come in is to get DOE off so that they stop wasting and mismanaging money. And I would hate to see that function not occur because of the gentlewoman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I would urge rejection of it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman, Mr. Space, to express my appreciation for the concern he has for his constituency, as well as the gentlelady from West Virginia, and my colleague on the committee, Mr. Aderholt, who also raised an amendment in the full committee. Again, I appreciate their work and their concern for the people in economic development of not only their individual constituencies, but their region, and certainly would pledge to continue to work with them to address their concerns. Having said that, I would ask my colleague from Ohio to withdraw his amendment.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman and Mr. Lipinski's request for funding for this very worthwhile program, and certainly look forward to working with him as well as the gentleman from Illinois as we go to conference.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would like to use my time and recognize the gentleman from South Carolina for a colloquy.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to a member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor). (Mr. PASTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman's comments very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I simply have two speakers and would prefer to reserve at this moment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to my good friend and colleague from New York, a member of the subcommittee, Mr. Israel.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, we have had a lot of debate and discussion about this legislation over the last 2 days. I certainly have tried to emphasize that it represents an investment in this country. Some of that investment is represented by cuts we made, over 50 cuts in programs we did not feel were commensurate with the value of the monies that the taxpayers have sent to the United States Government. Many of those other dollars have been invested in programs we believe inure to the benefit of people's health and safety, to the movement of commerce and to the growth of our economy. I am going to be the last speaker on our side on this amendment and would conclude in another vein, and that is the national security of our country. I think most people, when they look at the Department of Energy, believe that you have a Department that spends all of its money on energy and energy research. As our colleagues know, this simply is not true. Only $1 out of about every $10 inure to that purpose. Most of it deals with cleaning up nuclear waste. Much of it is keeping our nuclear arsenal secure, as well as making sure that it is safe and reliable. Our national security is at stake when we consider many of the elements in this bill. We are charged in this subcommittee to try to make wise decisions as to what pertains to people and this country's security and what does not. I would draw attention to a fundamental issue that affects every one of us, and that is the possibility of the nuclear conflict. There is a proposal pending by the administration to build a new nuclear weapon. We had to make what I think is a very profound decision on behalf of the people of this country as to what course of action should we take. We decided, in a bipartisan fashion on this subcommittee, to not proceed for a number of reasons. One is essentially what the perspective of our allies and those who do not have our interests at heart internationally would be if we proceed. In testimony before the subcommittee, former chairman of the Armed Services Committee in the Senate, Sam Nunn, who is only one of two people I have ever met in my 57 years who has been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, the other being my senior Senator in Indiana, Senator Lugar, said that on the RRW itself, the new nuclear weapon, if Congress gives a green light to this in our current world environment, I believe this will be misunderstood by our allies, exploited by our adversaries, complicate our work to prevent the spread and the use of nuclear weapons. I will not fund additional work on RRW at this time. Another concern we had on the subcommittee is what is our strategy for the use or, hopefully not the use, of those weapons, as well as our strategy as far as eliminating weapons internationally. We have not developed as a Nation and as a government a new strategy subsequent to the end of the Cold War. We have had regional conflicts thereafter in policies like Kosovo. We have had the events of 9/11, and we find ourselves in conflict the most today. We should have a broad national policy, not the policy of the Bush administration or any administration, but a national policy that stands the test of time through various administrations, as our last one did for half a century, and a strategy that also lasts through Congresses controlled by Republicans, Congresses controlled by Democrats over a generation; and that strategy does not exist. I am very heartened that the Armed Services Committee, under the leadership, particularly, of Subcommittee Chairman Tauscher, as well as her ranking member, Mr. Everett, on your side of the aisle, has asked for a commission to study that very issue. I am also very concerned that in the past, beginning in the late 1990s, the taxpayers of this country have been asked to invest billions of dollars in the so-called Stockpile Stewardship Program that I support. It is to ensure this we do not have to perform nuclear tests, but to ensure the safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons. But we were also told, by several administrations of both parties and by the Department of Energy for over a decade, that we need the National Ignition Facility built. Well, it's 6 years behind schedule, and it's 226 percent over budget by a factor of $2.428 billion. We were told by several administrations and the Department of Energy, both parties, that we need the Microsystems Science Engineering and Applications Lab at Sandia National Laboratory. That is currently 29.5 percent over budget. We were told by administrations of both parties that we need a dual- axis radiographic hydrotest facility. That is now 6 years behind. That is 35 percent over budget. None of them have been completed. None of them are going to come in on time. I would grant that the Advanced Simulation and Computational Initiative has taken hold and has produced results and has been a valuable investment. To now, after more than a decade of investment that has not come to total fruition, to make a hard turn in the road and start spending new money on new construction without a strategy would be a mistake. And this subcommittee has made a determination not to waste the American taxpayers' dollars on that project. We have asked, and it began 2 years ago under the leadership of then- Chairman Hobson, that we have an arsenal of 10,000 nuclear warheads, we have a Cold War complex. We need to rationalize and, in effect, downsize that to meet the new threats to make sure that we are nimble, that we are safe, and that we save the taxpayers as much money as possible. The administration has come back in and said, well, let us build a new nuclear weapon by 2012. And you know what? We're going to take care of the rationalization of the complex, and we're going to downsize and we're going to do that in 2030. My point is, I wish the administration and, in this case particularly, the Department of Energy, had as much aggression and commitment to downsizing the complex as they do on developing a weapon. And what they also would suggest that we do, before we downsize is, well, let's begin construction of this new nuclear weapon in the existing complex. So now we will have the old and we will have the new. And I think everyone, Mr. Chairman, knows the end of that story. Nothing will ever change. It's hard to attach an exact dollar and figure on that critical issue of our national security. But many of the dollars we have saved and not spent, and we have cut in this bill, is to make sure that we take the right approach as far as our nuclear strategy and our nuclear safety, and I am very proud of that. I see the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) on his feet. And if he would want time, I would be happy to yield to him.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And Mr. Chairman, I want people to truly appreciate Mr. Hobson's dedication as a member of not only this subcommittee, and as chairman for 4 years, but as a member of the Defense Subcommittee when there was a similar proposal several years ago and he thought it was the incorrect proposal. He stopped what I think was incorrect public policy from taking place. He saved the taxpayers of this country money. And the only reason today I believe we have even a 20-30 proposition from the administration as far as downsizing the complex, that I find totally unsatisfactory but at least it is a proposal, is because of the work that Mr. Hobson did. And I thank him for that very much, and do ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee, Mr. Peterson.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I have 3\1/2\ minutes left and understand I have the right to close. What I would like to do is to yield that 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York before he seeks recognition, and would simply emphasize to the membership that I am doing this as a courtesy. I am in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. But I would yield my remaining time to the gentleman from New York.

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

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2641, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the ordering of the yeas and nays be vacated with respect to the motion to suspend the rules and pass S. 1352 to the end that the Chair put the question de novo.