Ellen Tauscher

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), another cosponsor of the amendment.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, as our final speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) for trying to fix the Sick Worker Compensation program at the Department of Energy. His State of Tennessee has 3,000 claims from sick workers pending, and I have two facilities in my district where workers are waiting for their claims to be processed. This amendment primarily increases the rate of pay for DOE to attract more doctors to review claims in the physicians panel, which is useful but does not fix structural flaws in this program. The GAO panel has found that even after claims go through a physicians panel, there is no willing payer and that by order from DOE, that is no one to pay these claims for at least 20 to 33 percent of valid claims. When there is no willing payer, as we have in States like Alaska, Colorado, Ohio, Iowa, Missouri and Kentucky, and we have workers in Nevada, construction workers in New Mexico, Idaho, California and in most other States that DOE cannot find willing payers, without a willing payer, workers who get a finding from the physicians panel will have a piece of paper from DOE saying their illness was caused by exposure to radiation at DOE sites, but they will not get paid. I support an amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) that fixed this problem, but it was rejected by the Committee on Rules. DOE also does not have a clear mechanism to value claims, inviting additional litigation when the goal of Congress was to take DOE out of the business of fighting sick workers who have served our Nation by building our Cold War deterrent. This amendment does not fix that either. The Department of Energy's record is catastrophic. Two and a half years into the program, of the 23,000 people who have applied for compensation, the Department of Energy has rejected 5 percent of them and completely processed about 6 percent of them. In other words, 94 percent of applicants are still waiting for their cases to be addressed. Sick workers were told help was on the way. Four years later, DOE is projecting its caseload will not be completed for at least another 3\1/ 2\ years. I reluctantly oppose this amendment, as it offers a minor technical fix to a program that remains structurally flawed. Throwing more money at DOE only rewards it for failing to compensate sick workers and will make it harder in the future to make real improvements to the program. There is a bipartisan amendment on the Senate side that I hope many of our colleagues will be able to support in conference. In the meantime, I reluctantly call on my colleagues to oppose the Wamp amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of time.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my support for the Davis amendment. This amendment would provide fairness and equity to women in the military who are serving overseas. Currently, women who have volunteered to serve our country and female military dependents are barred from exercising their legally guaranteed right to choose simply because they are stationed overseas. Military women should be able to depend on their base hospitals for all of their health care needs. A repeal of the current ban on privately funded abortions would allow military women and dependents based overseas the same range and quality of medical care available to women in the United States. No Federal funds would be used to perform these procedures and no undue burden is placed on military physicians overseas. Finally, Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply repeals the statutory prohibition on abortions in overseas military hospitals. I hope we can all support this amendment and ensure that American women overseas are afforded access to quality reproductive services, as they would be if they were home in the United States. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Captain Jim Jennings, who is retiring from the city of Concord Police Department after 35 years of serving the residents of Concord as well as the larger community. Captain Jennings was born in Placerville and is a life-long resident of California. He married his wife Jennifer in 1970 and they have spent 34 wonderful years together. Captain Jennings' public service career began even before his time with the Concord Police Department. He served in the U.S. Army in Vietnam from 1967 to 1968. During his service, he received several commendations and medals for his work. Captain Jennings was hired as a patrolman with the Concord Police Department in May 1969. His distinguished career of public service includes serving on the board of directors of the Peace Offers Research Association of California. For 8 years, he also served as the organization's president. In 1992, he collaborated with the Contra Costa County Superior Court to develop a protocol that law enforcement officials could follow to handle weapons seized from individuals. This protocol is now followed by all law enforcement agencies in Contra Costa County. In 1994, Captain Jennings was honored for his on-the-scene help to prevent an individual from jumping to his death. During the following year, he was responsible for creating the Concord Police Department's Northern District Field Office. More than 1,000 individuals attended the Field Office's Grand Opening, demonstrating the widespread public support for his work. For 35 years, Captain Jennings has served the Concord Police Department and surrounding community. His hard work has improved the safety of the city as well as bettered the overall quality of life for all members of the community. I am proud to commend him today for his leadership, dedication, and commitment to the people of the city of Concord.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members of the San Francisco Bay Area Congressional Delegation, including Representatives Stark, Pelosi, Miller, Lee, Lantos, Lofgren, Honda, Eshoo, Pombo, Woolsey and Thompson, I rise to pay tribute to Mike Healy, Department Manager of Media and Public Affairs for the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District. For his steadfast commitment and dedication as the face and voice of BART, even before the system carried a single passenger, we would like to thank Mike Healy and wish him well in his retirement. His thirty-two years of energetic leadership at BART have helped shape one of the largest and most vital mass transit systems in the United States for the better, for all of those who call the San Francisco Bay Area home. Born in South Bend, Indiana, Mike Healy was raised in Los Angeles and graduated from the University of Southern California with a Bachelor's Degree in Journalism and Telecommunications. Though initially more interested in writing screenplays for movie studios during his early career, it was transportation that was destined to attract and retain his attention. When BART first hired Mike Healy, he was told his tenure there would most likely end before six months had passed. Instead, Mike Healy has worked for six different general managers and many more elected directors since he first began work for the system in 1971. During Mike Healy's tenure at the transit district, directing media and public affairs, BART has gone from serving 17,000 passengers daily to more than 300,000. As the service added more patrons and more trains, the need to communicate quickly and effectively with the public and media took on added significance. Reaching such a large and complex audience was at times a monumental task, but one to which Mike Healy never faltered. Indeed, his calm professionalism serves as a model for public relations to countless transit systems throughout the nation. He is most often remembered for his striking performance during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. It was, as has been said, BART's ``shining hour.'' BART was shown to be indispensable to the region. When the Bay Bridge failed, BART was there. And Mike Healy's reassuring voice told an uncertain public that BART would be there to help the Bay Area move past the wide reaching natural disaster. He was right. Mike Healy has contributed his energy to serving the people in so many ways. He has served on the Board of Directors of the Oakland Visitors and Conventions Authority and has worked with the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) as Chair of its National Public Affairs and Community Relations Committee. It has been our great pleasure to have worked with Mike Healy over the years on transit issues affecting our great region. He has been a supportive colleague and a good friend. We wish him and his wife, Joan, best wishes in their future endeavors together. Mike Healy has made a singularly unique and constructive impact upon the lives of those who live, work, play in and visit the communities of the Bay Area. He has been an invaluable servant to the public. It is with honor that we commend Mike Healy for his 32 years of service and for his contribution in making travel easier for millions of people in one of the most populous metropolitan areas in America.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to recognize Earth Day and discuss the clean water challenges facing America. Over the last three decades our nation has made significant progress in addressing the pollution of lakes, streams, rivers and estuaries. However, these crucial gains in water quality are in jeopardy of being lost. The wastewater treatment facilities that have been the cornerstone of the Clean Water Act's success are now in need of critical upgrades and the resources for this environmental imperative are no where to be found. The Government Accounting Office, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Water Infrastructure Network have all found a wastewater infrastructure funding gap in excess of $500 billion, over the next 20 years. These assessments come at a time when we continue to reduce the federal commitment to clean water infrastructure. The FY 2005 Administration budget calls for less than $2 billion in federal investment for both wastewater and drinking water infrastructure. This declining investment in America's clean water comes at a time when we are providing nearly $4 billion to Iraq for water infrastructure. The time has come for our nation to rededicate itself to the importance of clean water and the infrastructure which makes it possible. It is time for Congress and the Administration to give serious consideration to making significant new investments in clean water infrastructure. We have dedicated funding sources to support our highway, aviation, and navigation infrastructure and it is now incumbent upon us to find similar funding support our nation's most critical infrastructure--water infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, I have introduced legislation to reauthorize the Clean Water State Revolving Fund in the last three Congresses that would increase the federal investment in clean water infrastructure ten-fold. This investment would help clean our environment and help our economy by producing thousands of new, good paying jobs. Unfortunately, this year's version of this important legislation is being held up over ideological issues that have nothing to do with cleaning up the environment or providing future Americans and our habitats with clean, safe water. I call on my colleagues this Earth Day to reflect on the importance of water in our daily lives and provide the infrastructure that makes clean water possible with funding that it requires.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of National Minority Cancer Awareness Week. This year marks the 18th annual National Minority Cancer Awareness Week, a national awareness campaign which focuses on the disproportionate cancer burden experienced by racial and ethnic minorities and other medically underserved communities. Despite all the progress that has been made in the battle against cancer, there is still much work to be done to eradicate this horrible disease. In California alone, 125,000 new cancer cases will be diagnosed this year; 52,200 people will die from cancer. Out of every 100,000 people living in California, 186 will eventually die of cancer. Mr. Speaker, we all know that a disproportionate burden of cancer continues to fall on a number of populations. African Americans have the highest death rates for all cancers and cancer is the leading cause of death for Asian American women. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the average annual death rate per 100,000 people for all types of cancers was 257 for African Americans, 199 for whites, 138 for Hispanic-Americans, 138 for American Indians, and 125 for Asian/Pacific Islanders. For every 100,000 people living in California, 65 African Americans in that group will die each year from lung cancer, 17 Hispanic women will die from breast cancer and 13 Asian Americans will die from prostate cancer. Inadequate access to preventive services and early detection means that diseases like cancer are more often diagnosed at later stages when the severity is likely to be greater and options for treatment are decreased. The future health of America as a whole will be influenced substantially by our success in improving the health of minority and other medically underserved populations. I rise today to commend those working in my district and state who work tirelessly on this issue in the hopes of one day beating cancer. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in Congress to come together and find a way to fund crucial research into cures for this disease. I hope we can reduce and ultimately eliminate the disproportionate burden cancer and other diseases pose on minority and medically underserved communities in our country.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Bachus-Tauscher amendment to clarify the hours of service rule for drivers in the motion picture and television industry. This industry is vital to California and the Nation, and these new rules inadvertently impact their business model and encourage offshore production. The Teamsters strongly support this amendment because it will save jobs for their members who contribute so much to our economy. I have tremendous respect for the ranking member of the committee and chairman of the committee, but the facts are that the rulemaking is about long-haul drivers, drivers who are driving many consecutive, consistent hours. This is not the situation here. This industry and the Teamsters have an unblemished record. They have a tremendous safety record. They are not driving for long hours. They are actually driving for less than 100 miles, waiting until the production is done, and then driving back. We are all for safety, but we also want to keep jobs in this country. This is vital to California. I urge my colleagues to support the Bachus-Tauscher amendment.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Blue Dog Budget offered by my friend Mr. Stenholm. Not only does it balance the budget by 2012, it also provides funds to sustain the Army as it transforms to meet a wide array of challenges. The administration's idea that it's okay to pay for predicted, long- term military operations and plans to increase the size of the Army out of a so-called ``emergency supplemental'' that will not even be requested until next January is irresponsible. This has two negative consequences: By not funding these crucial activities in the regular budget, we risk undermining military readiness between the period when the Army runs out of money and the next supplemental passes. And, by not funding regular military expenses in the defense bill, the Pentagon is essentially getting a high interest credit card to avoid making responsible budget choices today. As you know, the Army is undertaking its most significant transformation in fifty years while simultaneously trying to meet the challenges of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the war on terror and new threats to the United States and to our allies. Because of the Pentagon's incorrect initial assessment of the force size needed to stabilize Iraq, Reservists and Guard Members are on duty more often and for longer periods of time and our active duty force is severely strained. The Blue Dog budget does the right thing and funds the Army's force increase so that we can win the war without breaking the Army, relieve the Guard and Reserve and let us get back to the business of transforming the nation's military. I encourage my colleagues to support the Blue Dog budget Resolution.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this resolution claims to honor our troops, but it is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to run a political campaign on taxpayers' time. We have the best military in the world. I am honored to represent the men and women of Travis Air Force Base in Congress, and I will always be grateful to all of our men and women in uniform for their patriotism, courage, sacrifice, and devotion to our great Nation. As Members of Congress, we must support them in word and deed. I have been to Iraq and the Persian Gulf twice in the past year to talk to our troops serving there and learned firsthand what they need to get the job done and return home safely. Forty thousand American troops were sent to Iraq without bulletproof vests, and many more still do not have reinforced Humvees to protect them from daily roadside bombs. But this resolution does nothing to get this critical lifesaving equipment to our troops. I am very disappointed this resolution does not offer condolences to the families of the 564 Americans killed in Iraq thus far, nor mention the 2,500 wounded in action. It is also hard to believe that these congressional leaders would consider a resolution that categorically reaffirms that the United States and the world are made safe by the removal of Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party from power just days after the Spanish people buried more than 200 of their citizens in the worst act of terror in European history, and on a day, today, when a bomb blast killed dozens in Iraq. Instead of patting ourselves on the back, it is time to ask whether this administration's approach to the war on terror and the war on Iraq have made us safer. Two and one-half years after the September 11 attacks, al Qaeda is more dangerous than ever. The war in Iraq removed a dictator, but has created a new front on the war on terror that did not exist before and has pinned down a large amount of our troops in the Middle East for years to come. Mr. Speaker, I will vote ``no'' on this resolution. I urge my colleagues to support our troops with action, not shameless political ploys, and do the same.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Anne Cisle Murray, whose commitment to helping children at risk is being honored by the Boys Hope Girls Hope organization of Illinois as the 2004 recipient of the Joseph S. Kearney Heart of Gold award. Boys Hope Girls Hope of Illinois is a privately funded organization that reaches out to children who have shown academic promise, yet live with a family or in a community that has put them at risk. The mission of BHGH is to provide these children with stable home and academic environments and support them in all their endeavors up through college. Originally from Hamilton, Ohio, Anne Cisle Murray graduated from the University of Notre Dame with a business degree in 1974, a member of the first co-ed graduating class. In 1979 she married Steve Murray with whom she has three children, Tricia, Dan and Mac. Anne's devotion to her family has carried over into her Community through the time and effort she dedicated to the at-risk youth of Illinois. Her accomplishments and hard work as a mother, mentor and organizer in the public service arena will be recognized and commemorated in our nation's capitol today. Since joining Boys Hope Girls Hope of Illinois, Anne Cisle Murray has served all the executive positions on the organization's Women's Board. In addition to her presence on the Board of Directors and the Marketing Committee, she has also served as President, Vice President, Secretary, Dinner Dance Chairperson and Auction Chairperson. On a personal level, Anne and her family have been generous to the BHGH organization for many years. Anne reaches out to the community by welcoming young students in the program to her home to facilitate social interaction and familiarity with the other program families. Her general thoughtfulness and care ensure the success of the BHGH program and its participants. Anne Cisle Murray's determination to enrich the lives of children has made her a priceless member of Boys Hope Girls Hope of Illinois. By investing her time and love of children into this organization, Anne Cisle Murray has helped to make the future brighter for the at-risk children of Illinois.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, as co-leader of the Honorary Congressional Girl Scout Troop, I am pleased to congratulate Kathy Cloninger, who has recently been named as Chief Executive Officer of Girl Scouts of the USA. Under Kathy's leadership, Girl Scouts of the USA will truly become the preeminent organization advocating for America's girls. As a former Girl Scout I know first hand the difference that scouting can make in a girl's life. More than 3 million girls look to Girl Scouts of the USA to help them grow into talented, successful young women. As a former businesswoman, I also know first hand the difference that the leader of an organization can make. As co-leader of Troop Capitol Hill, I look forward to working closely with Kathy Cloninger. Her vision for Girl Scouting is inspiring. Under Kathy's leadership, Girl Scouts of the USA will complete their transition from the Girl Scouts that I knew, to the Girl Scouts that is now rising to the challenge of addressing the needs of contemporary girls with contemporary issues. From Girl Scouts Beyond Bars to troops in public housing communities, as I tell my daughter, this is not your mother's Girl Scouts. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me in congratulating Kathy Cloninger in her new position and wish her the best of luck.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, ``I strongly believe that seniors deserve and need a prescription drug benefit that's part of Medicare. I believe we should strengthen Medicare by adding drug coverage that will save seniors money and preserve the choices that matter. I will vote against this bill because it does not get us where we need to be. ``This legislation prohibits Medicare from negotiating lower drug prices; gives big drug and insurance companies $82 billion in subsidies just to compete with Medicare; and will privatize Medicare by pushing seniors into HMOs. ``I introduced a bill that would have provided immediate, real drug discounts to all seniors without turning over part of Medicare to HMOs. Unfortunately, it was not brought to a vote. ``There are many serious problems with the bill being debated today that people are trying to sweep under the rug. Up to a quarter of seniors on Medicare would pay more for prescriptions than they do now. Up to seven million seniors would pay higher Medicare premiums unless they join an HMO and give up their choice of doctor. Two to three million retirees would lose the drug coverage provided by their former employers. Millions of seniors would go without drug coverage for parts of every year, even though they would be charged premiums year-around. Seniors would be prohibited from purchasing American-made drugs from Canada at lower prices. After they have spent $1,169 on prescription drugs, seniors will have to pay their full drug costs until they reach $3,600 in drug expenditures. ``I am deeply suspicious that this bill, written almost entirely by Republicans, put the special interests of HMOs and pharmaceutical companies over seniors' interests. It will give $82 billion to private insurance companies so they can compete with Medicare, yet Medicare will be forbidden from negotiating lower drug prices with drug companies and competing in the same way. Even AARP has a financial stake in this bill. The company derives almost 60% of its annual revenue from selling insurance products. If they capture even 10% of the prescription drug market, their profits would be $1.5 billion. ``As a former investment banker, I know risk management. The magic of Medicare is that everyone has always been in the pool--the wealthy and healthy as well as sick and lower-income seniors. This bill will turn that on its head--driving the healthy and wealthy out of Medicare and creating large tidal pools in which sick and lower-income people are left without anything. ``It is a bad bill that will hurt millions of seniors and not really benefit anyone but the drug and insurance companies. I will vote against it, and I encourage all of my colleagues to stand up for seniors and do the same.''

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Hobson and Ranking Member Visclosky for their hard work in producing an Energy and Water Appropriations bill that funds a number of important programs This legislation includes significant increases over the President's request for Basic Energy Research and for Energy Supply programs. Sadly, this bill also marks a watershed in U.S. nuclear policy that will have dire consequences for us and for our children. Indeed, by funding research on adapting nuclear weapons for new uses against hard and deeply buried targets and funding work on new low yield nukes, Congress has given its stamp of approval to a persistent effort by this administration to put the United States back in the business of making nuclear weapons. The funding of these two initiatives has been the culmination of the work of nuclear hawks in the administration who had produced a Nuclear Posture Review in December of 2001 that places a strong emphasis on the use of nuclear weapons for both offensive and defensive purposes and a misguided National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction in December 2002 that outlines new scenarios when the United States would consider using nuclear weapons. The development not only marks a new chapter in American national security policy that directly invites a nuclear arms race with any power that wishes to compete, but also a shameful moment for Congress when elected officials have been too willing to embrace a new weapons program without challenging what have been very lightweight justifications. Mr. Speaker, nuclear weapons will remain a crucial part of America's arsenal for the foreseeable future. They provide a hedge against potentially hostile nuclear powers and underpin security commitments to our allies. But today, the United States is addressing the threat of weapons of mass destruction from Iran, North Korea, India, Pakistan and a growing list of counties. The Director of the CIA, George Tenet, warned last February that the ``desire for nuclear weapons is on the upsurge ``among small countries'' and that ``we have entered a new world of proliferation.'' Even Russia, our former Cold War rival whom we fought in a conflict that almost brought the world to the brink of annihilation, on noting the administration's current intent to pursue a new generation of nuclear weapons, has responded by making plans to strengthen its nuclear deterrent by modernizing delivery vehicles and keeping a number of heavy ballistic missiles previously slated for dismantlement. Instead of working to build an equitable global regime that actively devalues nuclear weapons and creates incentives for their elimination, the administration would rather develop new battlefield nuclear capabilities, leading us into a world where nuclear weapons are seen as legitimate alternatives for all nations and the taboo on their use is severely eroded. The administration's intent to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons of any size makes a mockery of the President's claim that the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) he signed with Russian President Putin marked the true end of the Cold War. Indeed, if you combine the repeal of the ban on development of low yield nuclear weapons contained in the Defense Authorization Bill with the funding of these same weapons in this bill and the flexibility in the SORT which allows both Russia and the United States too keep all their weapons rather than dismantle them, we actually have the makings of a nuclear arms buildup in this country for the first time since the end of the Cold War. While this bill cuts funds in half for the Robust Earth Penetrator and ties $4 million of the $6 million requested for advanced concepts to an important reporting requirement, there is no such thing as opening Pandora's box part way. With this bill, the United States has crossed a major threshold and entered a new nuclear era. By approving the administration's request for plans to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons, Congress has failed the American people by adopting policies that potentially make the United States less secure. The justifications the administration offered for its nuclear agenda--the need to maintain the knowledge of our nuclear designers and the need to strengthen our nulcear deterrent by developing more usable nuclear weapons--were paper thin. The first justification deserves little comment. The argument that Congress needs to create a jobs program for scientists to help hone their skills doesn't hold water. Second, the proposition that nuclear weapons can somehow be engineered to be smarter and cause less collateral damage is simply false. Nuclear weapons will never surgically destroy hardened targets. They offer no guarantee of destroying chemical and biological agents without releasing them into the atmosphere. Detonated in an urban area, even a 1-kiloton nuclear bomb with a yield much lower than the nuclear warheads under consideration for an RNEP would kill tens of thousands of civilians and hinder friendly troops. Our warfighters do not have a military requirement for new nuclear weapons, and we have not exhausted research on conventional alternatives. I am deeply concerned that by preaching the rhetoric of disarmament and nonproliferation, and on the other hand, developing a new generation of weapons of mass destruction, we are making the world a more dangerous place. Perhaps the most alarming thing this Congress has done is to trivialize nuclear weapons and their destructive power. The prohibition on low yield weapons not only was necessary, it reinforced the notion that nuclear weapons should always be considered the most destructive weapons known to man. By lifting the ban on research and funding their development in this bill, it is much easier to believe that they are just like any other usable weapons system, rather than a horrific weapon of last resort. The American people are poorly served when the executive branch does not engage them on policies that may have catastrophic consequences for them in the future and when their elected officials are reluctant to ask the hard questions or thoroughly review the administration's national security propositions. I am going to vote for this bill because it contains a number of important provisions for our economy. It will be up to this Congress and subsequent Congresses however, to ensure that the administration's quest for new and more usable nuclear capabilities does not take us closer to the day when we decide to use them again. We did not heed the protests of the current mayor of the city of Hiroshima who wrote the President on the anniversary of the bombing of his city this summer that ``this clear indication that the United States intends to develop small nuclear weapons raises the horrifying specter that nuclear weapons will actually be used'' and represents a ``frontal attack on the process of nuclear disarmament.'' If today we are unwilling to listen to those who have the only experience of the consequences of nuclear war, I hope that in the very near future we can at least start giving proper attention to this development in future hearings and debates.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I have mixed emotions as I consider the fiscal year 2004 defense authorization conference report. I would like to thank my chairman, Mr. Hunter, and Ranking Member Skelton for working with me on several items that will benefit the people in my district, Travis Air Force Base, and our military airlift capabilities overall. Indeed, the language in the bill expediting the transfer of land from the Navy to the Housing Authority of the City of Dixon will improve the living and work conditions of migrant workers who contribute to the local economy. The language preventing the Secretary of the Air Force from retiring C-5A aircraft until one has been modernized and tested is a crucial measure that not only sustains a critical investment in upgrading one of the United States' most reliable transport planes, but it also ensures that Travis Air Force Base will continue to be an important provider of strategic lift in the near future. The bill also contains a number of important provisions for our men and women in uniform such as an increase in base pay; a reduction in housing expenses; an increase in family separation allowance; and an increase in the rate of special pay for our brave troops who serve in hostile situations and imminent danger. Despite these important positive elements, the bill contains several reckless provisions that undermine the security of the United States and needlessly jeopardize civilian employees and the environment. This bill puts the United States back in the business of making nuclear weapons, adds unnecessary regulations that hamstring the DOD's nonproliferation programs, takes away the protections of civilian personnel, and gratuitously endangers the environment. By lifting the ban on research and development of low yield nuclear weapons, Congress is abetting the administration's efforts to build a new generation of nuclear weapons; is inviting an arms race with rogue states, terrorists and allies; and is making a nuclear conflict more likely in the long run by undoing decades of American leadership in controlling the spread of the most deadly weapons known to man. The Defense Bill, rather than increasing the budget for the DOD's valuable cooperative threat reduction programs that dismantle and destroy weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union, adds unnecessary funding restrictions that in the end will only hurt the security of the American people. The broad environmental exemptions provided for in the bill will undermine efforts to protect our environment by, among other things, making it harder to wall-off parts of military facilities as protected areas for wildlife. Proponents use spin to claim this is necessary for military readiness, but it's hard to see how a blanket environmental exemption for everything on military installations from golf courses to swimming pools are pressing matters of national defense. Moreover, the Pentagon can already get waivers from the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act when national security is at stake. But in the three decades since these laws have been in effect, not a single waiver has been sought. The bill also abolishes DOD's long-standing labor relations system and replaces it with one in which civilian employees have only minimal consultation with unions and Congress. The bill allows DOD to remove basic due process rights that employees currently enjoy by waiving their right to a written response, their right to be represented by an attorney, and their right to a written decision explaining the action. I am deeply disturbed that the Republican Party has hijacked an important bill for our troops and attached to it a radical slash-and- burn ideology that is sure to undermine civilian morale at the Pentagon, needlessly endanger the environment and most alarmingly, endanger the American people with an irresponsible nuclear agenda. I am voting for this bill because I do not believe, especially in a time of war, we should punish our active troops by withholding funds and measures that would benefit them because of some of the administration's imprudent and over-reaching provisions in the bill.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Robert Ruark, whose retirement from his position as Chief Criminal Investigator of the Solano County Health and Social Services, Special Investigations Bureau will commence on Thursday, November 6, 2003. During his fourteen year career with the county, Chief Ruark has established himself as an extraordinary leader in law enforcement. At his retirement, his many accomplishments and hard work will be recognized within the community of his colleagues and friends. Robert Eugene Ruark was born in Turlock, California on November 4, 1946. After graduating from Turlock High School in 1964, Robert went on to attend Modesto Community College where he earned an Associate of Arts degree in Criminal Justice. He then attended Chapman University in 1968 where he obtained a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Social Sciences. Desiring to put his education to work, Mr. Ruark entered the U.S. Army as a Military Policeman and then served in the Republic of Vietnam as a Military Police Investigator. In 1969, Mr. Ruark graduated from the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Course which allowed him to serve as a CID Special Agent until his retirement as a Chief Warrant Officer Four (CW4) in 1989. In April that same year, he received his appointment as the Criminal Investigator II for the Special Investigations Bureau, Solano Health and Social Services Department and became a member of the California Welfare Fraud Investigators Association. In four short years he was promoted to the position of Supervising Criminal Investigator. His current rank as Chief Criminal Investigator was received in August of 2000. Robert's dedication to the community is not limited to his work in law enforcement. His desire to serve the community as a positive influence motivated his ordainment to the priesthood of the Orthodox Christian Church in 1996. Upon his retirement from law enforcement, he will continue to serve the community as the pastor of St. Timothy Antiochian Orthodox Christian Church, as he has done since January of 1997. Through his work as pastor he cooperates with a local area food bank to distribute food to many of the areas homeless and those living at or below the poverty level. However, of all his accomplishments he is probably most proud of his successful 32 year relationship with his wife, Alida, and his two wonderful children: William and Stephanie. Stephanie's daughters, Mikayla and Brianna, have further enriched his personal life. His fellow employees of the Solano County Health and Social Services, Special Investigation Bureau will forever remember Chief Ruark's extraordinary leadership and contributions to the community.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am offering an amendment with my friend and colleague from California (Mr. George Miller) to transfer $300 million from the weapons inspectors in Iraq to pay for lifesaving equipment for the Army National Guard and Reserve troops currently serving there. Our amendment would leave the remaining $300 million to focus on finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, if there are any. Some 300,000 of our Guard and Reserve personnel have been called to active duty to fight terrorists in Africa and Asia and secure the peace in Afghanistan, the Balkans and Iraq. They are being called on to serve multiple tours and will continue to serve until we either stabilize Iraq or get international troops in there to share the burden. Yet our Guard and Reserve forces are working in Iraq without bulletproof jackets, armored vehicles and other basic lifesaving equipment. I am deeply concerned that if the demands of the Guard and Reserve do not ease up in the coming months, we will severely undermine our ability to attract new Reservists and keep ones that we have, which will prevent those who are currently serving in Iraq from returning to civilian life. If we are to depend on our brave citizen-soldiers to secure the peace in Iraq and prosecute the war on terrorism elsewhere, it is critical that they have the same equipment as everyone else. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment to increase funds to protect the lives of our troops currently serving in Iraq. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the chairman of the Defense Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations for not only including me on the trip but for his eloquence and his leadership. I appreciate the fact that he recognizes the urgent needs of our Guard and Reserve. I know that he intends to work diligently to provide them with the money to get this new equipment. I do think that it would be wiser for us to have U.N. inspectors in there not only to have more credibility but also to share the burden. And I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.