Peter Visclosky

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, for just one moment. I would assure the gentleman from Illinois that we all do share his concern. It is my view we have a policy of the United States Government, but that we need a repository. As the chairman pointed out, we had an extended conference last year with the other body to make sure that Yucca was fully funded. We had a page of permutations as to how to work through the situation OMB placed us in this year. This is not a matter of our doing, and I do assure my colleague that I and the members of the subcommittee want to work through this with the Chair to make sure we proceed in an expeditious manner, and we have to solve this problem.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chairman, I do not know if the Chair is going to uphold the point of order, but I would simply point out that I think it is a very important provision in this bill. I appreciate the fact that the chairman included it in this legislation; and I think from a social and economic standpoint, it ought to remain in the legislation. Section 502, paragraph A states that it is the sense of the Congress that to the greatest extent practical, all equipment and products purchased with funds made available in this act should be American- made. Subsection C of that same section states that if it has been finally determined by a court or Federal agency that any person intentionally affects a label bearing ``Made in America'' in description or any in description with the same meaning to any product sold or shipped in the United States, that is not made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made available in this act. I understand the gentleman's intent as far as his motion to strike relative to jurisdictional issues, but I do believe this is a very key and fundamental issue to protect American workers in a living wage in the United States of America. And given the problems we have in this country as far as outsourcing where you have people intentionally lying and violating the law so the United States of America, we ought to protect American workers. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) for having this measure in this legislation.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chairman, if I could ask again which section of the bill the gentleman is looking to strike.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chairman, I simply want to rise to associate myself with the gentleman's remarks and the gentleman's objection. I do appreciate the intent, and I do want to work with the gentlewoman as we proceed at conference, but I am opposed to the amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I assure the gentleman I will join the chairman in reconsideration of this project if the opportunity presents itself. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall)

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), as well, for his dedication on trying to resolve this situation, helping his constituents, and also make note that he has also been in very close coordination with our office so that we can solve this problem. I do appreciate his very hard work on this.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to first of all congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), as well, on a very well-crafted bill. I would start by thanking the chairman very much for his friendship as well as his fairness and discretion in his dedication to make sure that the right thing is done and that the agencies under our jurisdiction are made as efficient and as effective as possible. As the chairman noted, we have an excellent staff that works very, very well together and they have helped us craft a very good bill. I too want to enumerate them because they are all so very important to us: Tracey LaTurner; Tim Winchell; Jim Spratt; Kenny Kraft; Dennis Kern; Scott Burnison; Kevin Cook, whom, I might add, is a Cornell graduate and has replaced a Notre Dame graduate as clerk of the committee; Dixon Butler and Peder Maarbjerg. This is a very good bill. There are a lot of good things to recommend it to the membership. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from Ohio, Chairman Hobson, for the courtesy shown to me and the Democratic staff by him and the majority staff of our Subcommittee. The positive environment and cooperation engendered makes work on this bill a joy and pleasure. I share with the Chairman the frustration that more cannot be done, particularly for the water and environmental infrastructure of our nation. The constraints imposed by the budget are very real. Our subcommittee mark increases funding for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers above last year's level and well above the ridiculously low request of the President. That said, the level recommended for FY 2005 is only 2.6% above that enacted by FY 2003; clearly this increase is below the level of inflation, so the buying power of the Corps-Civil Works budget is again below what it was two years ago. This bill puts a priority on completion of on-going construction projects and studies and maintenance of high priority existing infrastructure. It does not contain any new starts, and this should help to begin to clear the current backlog of projects and enable the accomplishment of these projects in less time--thereby reducing total project costs and accelerating the realization of benefits to our economy. However, current funding levels will not truly fix this problem. In my opinion, substantive increases to the budget of the Corps are needed--increases above the rate of inflation. A transformation in the way that water infrastructure and environmental restoration are supported through the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation will require a transforming rather than simply sustaining increase in the funds we provide. Without this, completion of construction and maintenance projects and studies will continue to take too long and major new projects will languish. There are those who have flirted with radical changes to our nation's approach to nuclear weapons--seeking to study new weapons for new missions and to develop a nuclear bunker buster. These same individuals have pushed to have this Nation prepare to resume underground nuclear testing within 18 months of a Presidential decision and to begin development of a major new facility to build plutonium pits--also referred to as nuclear triggers. All of these steps jeopardize our position in the world as advocates of restraint in the development of weapons of mass destruction. They all portend major increases in funding requirements. Today, conventional national defense and homeland security, including nuclear nonproliferation, are far better investments than enhancements to our nuclear deterrent. Under the leadership of Chairman Hobson, no funding is provided in the Energy and Water Development bill for any of these ill-considered policies. As many members realize, plutonium, highly enriched uranium and some highly radioactive products of nuclear fission in the hands of terrorists could pose major hazards to the United States and its allies. Accordingly, this bill fully funds the President's request of almost $1.35 billion for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation at DOE. Some elements of the DOE program are stalled while other opportunities have opened up to protect major quantities of fissionable material. Accordingly, I fully support the shifts in this bill of $177.25 million to priority targets for nonproliferation including: security of Russian Strategic Rocket Forces sites (+$32M), MegaPorts (+$30M), and efforts outside the Former Soviet Union (+$60M). Also, I am pleased to note that this year no reductions are taken to nuclear nonproliferation efforts due to uncosted prior year funds; this helps keep the pressure on to move aggressively to initiate new projects in Russia. Last year, in the first year that the gentleman from Ohio served as chairman of the subcommittee, the FY 2004 Energy and Water Development appropriation fenced some funds for advanced nuclear weapons concepts, specifying that $4 million could not be spent until the Administration provided a revised nuclear stockpile plan. Thanks to this action, the Departments of Defense and Energy have finally delivered a revised plan that details how the United States will achieve our treaty commitments to bring the number of deployed nuclear weapons down to the range of 1,700 to 2,200 by the year 2012. The development of this plan is vital to our nation. Now, the spending plans of the National Nuclear Security Administration need to be brought into alignment with the revised nuclear stockpile plan. I am committed to working with the majority and DOE to bring this about. For FY 2005, the bill will fund the beginning of this process by providing support for an ongoing program of disassembly for nuclear weapons that are no longer needed. A smaller stockpile will be less expensive to maintain and certify while still providing a more-than-adequate nuclear deterrent. Experience shows that when the Department of Energy's labs are forced to compete with universities and other outside research groups, the country gets more for its money and the labs actually do better work. The Department has for some time asserted that open competition between its labs and external entities, such as universities, is not allowed under federal procurement law and regulations. I am particularly pleased that this year this bill instructs DOE to find a way to accomplish fully open competitions and to propose changes to law or regulation if any are needed. I note that DOE labs are already involved in space missions where traditionally competition for science investigations, including major research instruments, is open to NASA centers, DOE and other agency labs, universities ,and corporations, so DOE may find that this is easier than they have asserted in the past. As we in the Congress push the Administration to develop a five-year plan for DOE and business plans for each of its labs, we also should work to clarify the role of DOE in the life sciences. Our nation continues to make major investments in the National Institutes of Health, yet the DOE is seeking to develop major facilities to support research in protein synthesis and the control genes exert over processes in living cells. Many of these facilities involve the use of advanced physics techniques--a traditional strength of DOE. Does this traditional role in physics research mandate that DOE fund these facilities? Furthermore, does DOE's traditional role as the chief supporter of high energy physics mean that DOE should co-fund satellite missions in astronomy that are traditionally the responsibility of NASA? NSF supports astronomy of all kinds and has since its inception, yet it does not seek funding for satellite missions. This year, the bill again provides strong support to the Office of Science at DOE. This office is leading efforts to develop a U.S. supercomputer that will be the most capable in the world--a distinction currently held by the Japanese Earth Simulator. Last year, an extra $30 million was provided to jump-start this effort. This year, the Department included this increase in its base budget, but this level of funding will not get the job done. So, again another increase of $30 million is provided for this effort. DOE provides the science and industrial communities with powerful research tools. In the President's budget request, operating time on some of these user facilities would have been less than optimum. To get the most from our past investment in these facilities, funding levels are provided to increase the number of weeks they can operate in FY 2005. More support also is provided for nanoscale science and technology and maintenance of DOE science facilities around the nation. Long ago, our nation made a commitment to to use nuclear energy to power our submarines and aircraft carriers and to provide a significant amount of our commercial electricity generation. We have operated a nuclear weapons complex for about 60 years. The result is considerable amounts of high-level nuclear waste that is currently spread around our country. For our safety and that of coming generations, this waste needs proper, long-term burial. The Congress and the Executive have decided that this burial will be in Yucca Mountain on the edge of the Nevada Test Site. Funding for long-term disposal of high level nuclear waste in FY 2005 should be $880 million, but OMB muddled the situation by needlessly proposing that the civilian support of $749 million be funded through a legislated reclassification of money paid into the nuclear waste fund and kept in the general treasury. This, along with the constraints of the budget, has left us unable to provide these funds in this bill. I find it hard to believe that a poorly timed proposal, which in no way affects the actual deficit, will undermine a policy consensus carefully developed over decades, but that is where we are. So, I would say to my fellow members, the FY 2005 Energy and Water Development bill is a very good bill. It makes major progress on crucial issues. It provides for many activities that are critical to our nation and the world as well as to regions of our country and individual localities and member districts. I think it will give the House a strong position in our conference negotiations with the Senate. It does not fix all problems, but it provides for significant improvements. I strongly urge that it be passed by this House. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I congratulate one of Northwest Indiana's most caring and dedicated citizens, Professor Rosalie Levinson. Her career as a Professor at Valparaiso University has allowed her the opportunity to touch the lives of numerous students, both in and out of the classroom. In honor of her gracious service to Valparaiso University, on May 1, 2004 she was named the first Phyllis and Richard Duesenberg professor of law. Rosalie's appointment was announced during a gala at Chicago's Field Museum celebrating the 125th anniversary of Valparaiso University's School of Law. Rosalie Levinson has accomplished many visionary goals throughout her career. She earned her bachelor's and master's degrees at Indiana University and her law degree from Valparaiso University. Rosalie has been a law professor at Valparaiso University since 1973. She has argued several civil rights cases before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and is a frequent lecturer on continuing legal education, including the Federal Judicial Center for Federal Judges and the Practice Law Institute programs. Rosalie has team taught with the United States Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Clarence Thomas at the Valparaiso University's study center in Cambridge, England. Numerous articles written by Rosalie have been published in national law journals. She has co-authored with Professor Bodensteiner a four volume treatise entitled ``Civil Rights Liability'' and also a textbook entitled ``Civil Rights Legislation and Litigation.'' Rosalie served as chair of the Civil Rights Section of the Association of American Law Schools and as a board member on the Jewish Human Relations Council of Northwest Indiana. Although Rosalie has served on numerous Law School and University Committees and has donated time to the students at Valparaiso University, she has never neglected to provide support and love to her family. Rosalie and her husband Don have two children and two grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, Rosalie has given her time and efforts selflessly to the students at Valparaiso University throughout her years of service. I respectfully ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in congratulating Professor Rosalie Levinson for her outstanding contributions. I am proud to commend her for her lifetime of service and dedication.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to commend one of Northwest Indiana's most distinguished citizens, Milan Opacich, of Schererville, Indiana. Milan is one of twelve exemplary master folk and traditional artists chosen to receive the 2004 National Heritage Fellowship by the National Endowment for the Arts. On Thursday, September 30, 2004, he will be honored by the United States Government for his artistic excellence and his contributions to the art field. Milan's praiseworthy contributions will be recognized in Washington, D.C., at an awards ceremony on Capitol Hill. Since 1982, the Endowment has awarded more than 282 National Heritage Fellowships. Recipients include bluesman B.B. King, Irish step dancer Michael Flately, and acclaimed performers Shirley Caesar, Doc Watson, and Bill Monroe. Recipients are nominated, often by members of their own communities, and then judged by a panel on the basis of their continuing artistic accomplishments and contributions as practitioners or teachers. Milan was chosen for his expertise and commitment to passing on his skills and cultural traditions to a new generation. I can truly say that Milan is a dedicated, distinguished and committed citizen. I have known him for many years and consider him a close personal friend. Milan was born and raised in Gary, Indiana by a Croatian mother and a Serbian father. He became interested in string music at the age of four, and at the age of fourteen he began playing country music. At the age of eighteen he took up tamburitza music. After high school, Milan became a journeyman tool and die maker, honing the skills he used to build the tamburitza, a stringed instrument resembling the mandolin. He built instruments for himself, family, and friends; he also played in one of several orchestras. In 1958 Milan joined the Gary Fire Department. He set up a small workshop in the basement of the firehouse to continue making his instruments during down times. When he wasn't fighting fires, Milan was in the basement of the firehouse making instruments. He worked for the Gary Fire Department for 20 years, retiring 26 years ago. Milan now resides in Schererville, Indiana. He has converted his garage into a workshop similar to a museum of musical instruments. He has several pictures highlighting the different bands he has played with over the years, most recently the Drina Tamburitza Orchestra. Today he is recognized as this Nation's premiere tamburitza maker. His instruments have been exhibited at both the Renwick Gallery of the Smithsonian Institution and at the Roy Acuff Museum. In 2002, he was named to the Tamburitza Association of America Hall of Fame. Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my other distinguished colleagues to join me in commending Milan Opacich for his outstanding contributions to the arts. His family and friends should be proud of his accomplishments. I ask you and my other distinguished colleagues to join me in commending Milan Opacich for his lifetime of remarkable accomplishments and enduring service.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to rise today in support of House Resolution 676 and to celebrate the 40th anniversary of congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This landmark piece of legislation has been a cornerstone of our democracy for the past 40 years. The leaders who championed these important protections were visionaries armed with a truly moral cause. Congress sent the Civil Rights Act to President Johnson who signed the measure into law on July 2, 1964. That date will forever serve as the date our country embraced the fundamental right to equality. No longer would Americans tolerate injustice and discrimination. As the Representative of a racially, ethnically, and spiritually diverse constituency, I have witnessed the blending of cultures and the strong and vital community that has resulted from those forces. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the pivotal moment in American history that ensured the vitality of Northwest Indiana, and all of our communities. Though this legislation required decades of struggle and sacrifice in order to be realized, the gains we have been able to achieve as its result have been unparalleled. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed in the 88th Congress to enforce the constitutional right to vote, tackling discriminatory tests and obstacles placed in the path of many who sought to have a voice in their representation. It banned discrimination in federally assisted programs and outlawed segregation in businesses such as theaters, restaurants, and hotels. Title VII of the Act took the fundamentally important step of prohibiting discrimination by employers on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion or sex. It provided crucial enforcement mechanisms, by enlisting the district courts, the Attorney General, the Commission on Civil Rights, and the newly established Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity. Each provides vigorous and proactive protection of constitutional rights and takes action against those who continue to discriminate. This piece of legislation was a critical step in our Nation's efforts to address the issues of fundamental rights and institutionalized discrimination. This legislation was, above all ``essentially moral in character,'' as Senate Minority Leader Everett M. Dirksen stated. Passing the legislation was the right thing to do at the time, and vigorously enforcing it is the right thing to do in our time. Mr. Speaker, at this time I ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in recognizing that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the result of many years of struggle and sacrifice by Americans who fought for equality and justice, to whom we owe a great debt of gratitude. I applaud all those whose support and efforts led to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the most comprehensive civil rights legislation in our Nation's history. It is with great honor and pride that I commemorate the 40th anniversary of this landmark legislation.