Peter Visclosky

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Ryun amendment, which would restrict the ability of the Department of Energy to maintain the country's nuclear stockpile. The amendment would prohibit the Department from dual-hatting certain senior physicists and nuclear weapon designers and would mandate certain job functions encompassed in the requirement of the Defense authorization bill to split the Department of Energy into two independent organizations. The practical problem inherent in the gentleman's amendment is that it is not enforceable. Less than 20 Federal employees are currently dual-hatted in the Department of Energy. These officials are the core of the nuclear weapons program, and these scientists and military officers are not attempting to politicize the Department; they are men and women who won the Cold War. What the amendment is attempting to do is to set a date certain by which these people must be replaced. Hiring permanent replacements for these officials is not a frivolous issue. Replacing nuclear weapon experts takes time and very careful consideration. Earlier this month, the Senate confirmed the new chief of the National Nuclear Security Administration, General Gordon. General Gordon has a Ph.D. in nuclear physics and is a former deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency. General Gordon should not be forced to hire 18 new senior government executives in literally the next 30 to 60 days. I do not believe that it is a sound proposition, and I am opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the Kingston amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in opposition to the amendment. I do think the NIF is an important program. Clearly there have been some very serious problems that have angered everyone in this body, and clearly have angered the Secretary of Energy; that is why a penalty was imposed, that is why $55 million of the proposed $95 million additional investment that needs to be made is going to come out of the hide of the contractor essentially Lawrence Livermore. I do think that the Department of Energy, finding a very serious problem, is trying to take the appropriate corrective action, I do not believe the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) is in the best interests of our national security or the testing program and do oppose the amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, that is perfect. I appreciate the Chair's courtesy. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez). (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Maloney).

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I assume the gentleman from Pennsylvania has the right to close. So he would use his time to close?

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

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated on the remarks on the rule earlier, we find ourselves with an amendment that I do support that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood) has offered. But I would want to remind Members of the history of this House in legislative action over the last several weeks. First of all, we had an amendment that was offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) to the Interior bill about a week ago. His proposal was essentially to fund the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve that the gentleman would seek authorization for in his legislation. The amendment of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) was defeated by two votes in this body literally a week ago. Additionally, this body has essentially already passed through the authorization process the amendment that the gentleman has already put forth, so we are for a second time now stating a proposition that to date the majority in the other body has refused to act on. I would further point out that in full committee, when the energy and water bill was considered during the past week, the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), in trying to break this logjam, whether it be in this body or in the other body, offered an amendment for a 1-year extension of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that was essentially unanimously agreed to by the committee. Under the amendment, her language stripped out ``and a full 3-year authorization is entered into.'' Again, I support what the gentleman is doing. I would simply encourage people to remember that the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick) was active on this issue and offered her amendment a week ago. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) was denied on a two-vote margin in this House funding for one of the propositions the gentleman put forth, and a majority in the other body, again, refuses to act. I appreciate again the gentleman's initiative, but there is, again, bipartisan support for what is taking place here tonight. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would seek to claim the time, on the understanding that no other Member is seeking the time in opposition.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentlewoman's commitment to her constituents, and also, in terms of her attempt in trying to begin to solve the energy crisis we face in this country. I do look forward to working with the gentlewoman on this issue as we approach conference, but obviously I cannot make a commitment to the gentlewoman here on the House floor. Again, I do appreciate the gentlewoman raising the issue this evening. Amendment Offered by Mr. Sherwood

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to use this time to engage in a colloquy with the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would simply conclude our side of the debate, Mr. Chairman, by indicating that I respect the gentleman from New Jersey and those who have spoken on his side very much, both in terms of their intelligence, their passion on the issue, and their commitment for their constituents. I happen, in this instance, however, to seriously disagree with them. I believe that we have an authorized program, the procedures and laws of this country have been followed; and I do think that we ought to proceed. I do oppose the Andrews amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski). (Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, if there are no further speakers, I yield back the balance of my time

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with the Kyoto Protocol that has been debated a number of times on the House floor within literally the last several days, as well as committee; and I would simply want to point out several things. One is, Kyoto did not simply come full clothed from the Clinton administration but rather from negotiations begun under President Bush's administration pursuant to a treaty that President Bush signed on June 1, 1992. There was a Kyoto Protocol subsequent to that, and concerns have been expressed as far as various administration agencies engaging in actions that are not authorized. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) has made a point of this, and I would simply indicate that the concern I have is we have legitimate authorized programs that the various departments in this case, the Department of Energy, should pursue and they should not in any way, shape or form be precluded from doing so because coincidentally they also happen to have been mentioned in the Kyoto Protocol. I would agree with the concerns expressed on previous occasions by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) that the Kyoto Treaty is not the law of the land. We should not be implementing it; but because there are diversions and parallel tracks in many programs, I do want to make sure that we are clear that we are not in any way inhibiting duly authorized programs from proceeding. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.