Ellen Tauscher

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, it is with a heavy heart that I vote for this bill. While I am deeply troubled at the prospect of adding even more to our rapidly spiraling debt, poor planning and severe mismanagement by the White House have left 113,000 American troops in a deadly situation in Iraq without the training or equipment they need. We cannot make this bill a retroactive referendum on all the mistakes President Bush has made about this war. Nearly $65 billion in this bill is for our troops who are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they desperately need it. When I went to Iraq last month, I learned that there are literally thousands of American troops there who lack basic life-saving equipment like bullet-proof vests. How can we tell them their lives are not worth the price tag? If we don't send the money our troops need, we leave them stranded in an incredibly dangerous environment. If we pull out our troops now, we will leave innocent Iraqis in a security and economic situation worse than before the war began and our own country more vulnerable. I attempted to amend this bill to hold the administration more accountable for the $20 billion they are requesting for reconstruction. I believe that part, but not all, of the responsibility for reconstructing Iraq lies with the United States, and I call on the administration to increase its efforts to seek international support to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq. Until it is stabilized and self- governing, Iraq will remain a potential breeding ground for terrorism in a volatile region. Mr. Chairman, I urge you to put good public policy over politics and ensure bills as distasteful as these cease to be the norm in the House of Representatives. Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3289, President Bush's $87 billion funding request for Iraq. This supplemental appropriations bill is not about showing support for our troops. We are all united behind their courageous efforts. This is about where the United States goes from here. I think most Americans realized that our commitment overseas would be lengthy and it would be costly. However, the Administration has been unwilling or unable to state its plans for the creation of stable representative governments, able to police and defend themselves, in Iraq or in Afghanistan. We have absolutely no idea how long troops will be stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan and we have no idea how much money will be required to complete this mission. When pressed by the Appropriations Committee for answers on these points, the Administration declined to give any answers. That is not good enough. It is time for the President to provide us all with answers to those questions. I understand that the President cannot set out a precise timetable for troop withdrawal and he may not be able to provide a guaranteed final budget figure. I am not expecting that level of detail. However, I do expect, and this great country deserves, basic information about the future of this mission. That information is not forthcoming, and yet we are being asked to provide an additional $87 billion for an effort that has already cost billions of dollars and hundreds of American lives--without an end in sight to costing more of both. I opposed the initial decision to invade Iraq because I did not believe that we had given the international inspectors sufficient time to confirm the President's allegations. Furthermore, I do not agree that the United States can or should impose democracy by force. I believe that my vote was correct at the time and every passing day confirms my conviction that I judged rightly. I did not approve of the initial invasion, and until I hear a responsible and realistic plan for dealing with the consequences of the invasion, I cannot in good conscience vote to approve these funds. I fear that we are lacking more than an exit strategy. We need a foreign policy. This Administration has failed to meet the challenges of the post Cold War, post 9/11 world. Today, I insist on a plan for Iraq. Further, I would respectfully ask for clarification on our plans relative to other countries--notably North Korea, Iran and Syria. I understand that these countries differ from Iraq, and from each other, in their domestic politics and geopolitical importance. Nonetheless, the President has singled out these countries as he did Iraq. How does he plan on addressing his stated concerns relative to each of these? Does he plan another military campaign? Will he rely on diplomacy? Will he engage the international community? Finally, I would certainly approve the replacement of armaments used in Iraq--we need a well-equipped military. I would approve funds to rebuild Iraq--we have an obligation to leave that country on its feet when we depart and the world expects no less. I would approve funding to increase the size of our military so that Congress would not have to resort to the use of private security to protect our military bases as this proposal allows. If necessary, I would approve funds to provide basic necessities for our troops--such as Kevlar, adequately armored vehicles, necessary communications equipment and comfortable living accommodations. However, I believe that these latter items should have been funded in the annual Defense appropriation; they are foreseeable and should have been available prior to engagement. I have supported similar appropriations requests in the past, for Iraq and for Afghanistan. I would support similar funding if it were accompanied by a plausible plan for the phased withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. However, absent such information, I cannot, and will not, support this request for funding at this time.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Ronn Owens, who received the National Association of Broadcasters' prestigious Marconi Award for major market personality of the year on October 2, 2003. Ronn Owens began his broadcast career in 1968, hosting radio programs in Atlanta, Miami, Cleveland, and Philadelphia before moving to the Bay Area and KGO in 1975. Over his thirty-five year radio career, Ronn Owens has established himself as the host of the most compelling and thought-provoking morning talk show in Northern California. A half-million fans tune into The Ronn Owens Show every morning to hear his opinions on a range of issues, from popular culture and gossip to current events and politics. He refers to his show as ``the ultimate town meeting.'' Ronn's guest list reads like a roster of Who's Who among world leaders, top celebrities, personalities, and newsmakers of the day. He has brought his devoted Bay Area audience numerous political figures, such as Al and Tipper Gore, John McCain, Bill Bradley, and Ralph Nader and celebrity personalities, such as tennis player Andre Agassi, theatrical legend Carol Channing, and attorney Johnnie Cochran. Ronn is the newsmen's news man. He has interviewed ABC News anchor Peter Jennings, veteran Washington Correspondent for ABC News Sam Donaldson, NBC's Washington Bureau Chief and Meet the Press host Tim Russert, Hardball host Chris Matthews, and CNN's Wolf Blitzer, to name a few. Ronn Owens' sense of humor, directness, and intellect has made him a legend in the morning radio talk show industry. Ronn is quoted as saying that he is ``just like everybody else--I look at the world around me and comment on it.'' His fans will forever love Ronn as the man who tickled their funny bones, increased their awareness of national and local issues, and opened their hearts and minds. Before being elected to Congress, I was a Ronn Owens listener. Over the past seven years, I have gotten to know Ronn as a guest on his show, and I have come to respect him a great deal. I have always found him to be insightful, funny and--even when we are at opposite ends of an issue--fair. Congratulations, Ronn, on thirty-five years and the Marconi Award. Here's to thirty-five more.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Jose-Luis Orozco, whose commitment to bilingual education is being honored by the National Hispanic Caucus and the National Association for Bilingual Education (NABE) in Washington D.C. Throughout the last quarter century, Jose-Luis Orozco has established himself as one of the premier bilingual educators in the United States. His accomplishments and hard work as an author, songwriter, performer and recording artist in the field of bilingual education will be recognized and commemorated in our nation's capital today. Born in Mexico City, Jose-Luis Orozco discovered his love of music at a young age under the influence of his paternal grandmother. At age 8, he joined the Mexico City Boys Choir, traveling to 32 countries where he gained the cultural knowledge he shares with children through his wonderful books and songs. At age 19, Orozco immigrated to California where he gained a bachelors degree at the University of California, Berkeley and a Masters in Multicultural Education from the University of San Francisco. Originally a teacher, Jose-Luis Orozco found his true passion in sharing with children the songs and rhymes he picked up on his world travels. Over his more than 30 year career as an author, songwriter, performer and recording artist, Jose-Luis Orozco has shared his work with millions of children throughout the country. He has recorded 13 volumes of Lirica Infantil, Latin American children's music, and written two award winning books, Diez Deditos (Ten Little Fingers) and De Colores and other Latin American Folk Songs for Children. These works have become an essential teaching tool used in tens of thousands of multilingual classrooms across the country. Jose-Luis Orozco's determination to enrich the lives of children has made him a true legend in multilingual education. The world will forever remember Jose-Luis Orozco as the educator who has and will continue to make learning fun for millions of children through the medium of music.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am submitting this statement for the Record as a sign of my strong disapproval for what we are about to do. As a pro-choice, pro-child mother and Member of Congress, I believe that abortions should be safe, legal, and rare. For more than a quarter-century, the Supreme Court has drawn a clear line on this issue. As Americans and lawmakers, we are bound by the Constitution--and we must realize that an all-out ban on late-term abortions fails to meet the ``life and health of the mother'' standard the Supreme Court established in Roe and upheld in both Casey and Webster. The bill we have before us today does not take into consideration the health of the mother. The Supreme Court has found similar laws unconstitutional and will do the same with this one. If the bill banned all late-term abortions, but allowed for the constitutionally required exception when it would be necessary to save the mother's life or avert serious health consequences, then I would support it. The anti-women's health majority that continues to push this legislation is putting their own convoluted political agenda above the health concerns of women and above the law. The choice whether or not to have an abortion is a private and personal decision. It should be made between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her God. The federal government has no business interfering. I strongly object to this bill and urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat it.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the help of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Petri) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Ranking Member Oberstar) on this. I really understand the clarification, and I support the bill.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the committee.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), in a colloquy. I am concerned about the transfer authority provided under sections 3(a) and (b) of the bill. This provision, as I understand it, allows States during this interim period to transfer funds from critical highway safety, transportation enhancement, and congestion mitigation and air quality programs. I want to be assured that the real intent of this provision is to give States additional authority for those cases where it is needed on a project-by-project basis to move funds beyond which current law would allow. Further, it is my understanding that in cases where funds are transferred, section 3(c) specifically requires the restoration of any transferred funds promptly after the date of enactment of any subsequent law reauthorizing the Federal aid highway program, whether it be a short-term extension act or multiyear reauthorization legislation. Therefore, this transferability provision expires at the end of the 5-month period on February 29, 2004; and any funds borrowed are required to be restored. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit, and Pipelines.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, with the passing of Edward Teller on Tuesday, the United States has lost one of our foremost physicists and a lifelong advocate for education. Through his leadership and vision, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in my district designed the nuclear weapons that have deterred world wars and the infrastructure that ensures the continuing safety, security, and reliability of our Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile without live testing. His efforts were instrumental in creating the Livermore site at what was then the University of California Radiation Laboratory in 1952. Teller served as the Laboratory's second director from 1958 to 1960, a time when it was well along in development of the U.S. Navy's Polaris missile warhead. Teller advanced Polaris, the Laboratory's first military design project. Polaris was validated in a test in 1958, a few months before nuclear testing was halted for a time by a voluntary moratorium. The moratorium was one of Teller's greatest challenges. Faced with keeping the Laboratory viable without testing, plans were laid for a program exploring the peaceful uses of nuclear explosives called Project Plowshare. In addition to his contributions to physics, Teller was a passionate educator and strongly believed that America needed more intensive scientific education to develop future generations of scientists and engineers. Less than two months ago, Edward Teller was recognized for his contributions to science with the prestigious Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Nation's highest honor. As I work with the national laboratories on the cutting edge programs they have developed in multiple areas, I am constantly reminded of Edward Teller's legacy. I am saddened by this loss but know that he has made lasting and important contributions to the security of the United States. For that, we are all grateful.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to ask my colleagues to support a simple amendment. Currently only consumers who can prove that they already have been victims of identity theft can ask the credit industry to confirm the identity of a person before issuing new credit accounts under the consumer's name. My amendment would simply allow any consumer the option to require the credit industry to use the reasonable policies and procedures identification standards established in the fraud alert provision. This amendment would give all consumers, students, military, the elderly and families, a meaningful way to protect their own personal credit records. Proponents of this bill claim that the fraud alert provision creates powerful consumer protection tools to prevent identity thieves from opening accounts in their names. They fail to mention that the tools are available only after one becomes a victim. Talk about closing the barn door after the horse is out. The credit industry argues that the public needs education to learn how to protect their data. While there are some precautions individuals can take, individual consumers have little or no means to protect themselves from the fastest-growing type of identification theft, theft from poorly protected databases. Since 1990, 33 million Americans, or one in six adults, have been victims of identity theft. This year businesses will lose $4.2 billion to this crime, losses that will ultimately be passed on to other customers. Earlier this year, the major credit card companies confirmed that a hacker broke into their systems and accessed 8 million credit card records. My amendment would provide all consumers an option to proactively protect their personal information against fraudulent use by identity thieves, organized crime and terrorist organizations. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the distinguished ranking member from Massachusetts to work with me and the members of the committee during conference to implement the spirit of my amendment in the final report.

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

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my strong opposition to H.R. 2210, the School Readiness Act of 2003. Nationwide, Head Start programs are facing serious budget and service cutbacks in the comprehensive health, nutrition, social and educational services they offer. Most Head Start programs only have enough funds to operate a half-day schedule while most parents need full day care to accommodate their work schedules. Only three out of every five children eligible for services find a slot in a Head Start classroom. Only 62,000 infants and toddlers--just 3 percent of those eligible--are served in Early Head Start. Many centers will face possible closure within the next 5 years if President Bush's proposal is enacted. Last year, federal funding for Head Start was almost cut by 10 percent. If that funding cut had been enacted, the Napa Solano Head Start Program, which serves children in some of the areas I represent, would have been forced to eliminate 100 slots for kids; would have had to close five classrooms; and would have had to fire 15 teachers. The Napa Solano Head Start program serves over a thousand infants, toddlers, and pre-school children in my district. These children come from families who live in poverty--where the parents' incomes are around $18 thousand a year for a family of four. Without Head Start, these families would have almost no options. Incredibly, Head Start is only receiving a paltry 1.6 percent increase in funding for 2004--an amount that barely covers inflation. Head Start administrators say they will be forced to make cuts. But Mr. Chairman, the cuts are not the biggest concern. The crux of this debate is that the White House and Republicans in Congress are trying to dismantle Head Start as we know it. The Republican bill being debated today would change Head Start from a program that provides federal grants directly to local community organizations into a state- controlled program. I've always believed that education needs to be a national obsession and a local possession, and I am very concerned that taking money away from communities to run Head Start programs tailored to their needs would devastate children in our communities. States will be forced to use money for administrative expenses instead of spending it all on early education, healthcare, and nutrition services for our children. This plan may also allow states to use Head Start dollars for non-Head Start programs because the block grant money could be funneled to other programs to reduce state budget deficits. A state only needs an existing program providing pre-kindergarten in order to qualify for funds. Unfortunately, nothing in this bill requires the state to have a good pre-K program. There are no measures dictating quality, class size, or components of curriculum. Any program would suffice. Thus, a state with an untested, unproven program that is less rigorous and comprehensive than the Head Start program would still qualify for funds. According to the National Head Start Association, only four states have services as comprehensive as Head Start, and none have been demonstrated to be of equal or better effectiveness. And, because of conditions put on states to receive Federal funds, many simply would not qualify. The net effect of this, Mr. Chairman, is that there will be fewer dollars to administer programs at the local level and our kids will be the ones who suffer. But that's not the only problem with this bill. It essentially guts performance standards, which will ultimately lead to dismantling Head Start. Current law requires the Department of Health and Human Services to thoroughly review all Head Start grantees every 3 years. Head Start experts supervise and conduct the reviews. Under H.R. 2210, accountability and oversight will disappear because the reviews will be contracted out and there will be no initial evaluation of the quality of their state plan before funds are released. By determining priorities and making decisions at the state level instead of at the local level, the input of community leaders and parents would be eliminated. I do support the underlying bill's provision requiring that 50 percent of Head Start teachers nationwide have a bachelor's degree by 2008, and that by 2005, all new teachers have at least an associate's degree. This would provide our children with better trained teachers and would provide our teachers with a way to earn a higher salary. Unfortunately, this bill provides no funding for teacher education or salaries. It actually cuts the amount of funds that may be reserved for teacher training and technical assistance to less than 2 percent. Head Start teacher salaries cannot compete with the benefit packages offered by county offices of education and school districts; therefore we train teachers and then lose them to the higher paying entities after they obtain their degrees. This bill does not provide enough money for teacher training and salaries and is thus another unfunded mandate. Head Start is not just a literacy program or just a pre-kindergarten program. It is an anti-poverty program that seeks to build strong families and strong communities. Strengthening the family is the only way we can effect long-term, positive change in a child's life. My colleague from California, George Miller, has offered a substitute bill that will keep Head Start in place as we know it. The Miller substitute will strengthen school readiness, improve program quality, and expand access so more eligible kids are served--and provide enough funds to do so all while maintaining local control. The Democratic substitute includes assistance for children of migrant and seasonal farm workers, creates a new quality standard to develop school readiness, and focuses on pre-literacy, language and pre-math skills. While our children's performance standards in some content areas do need to be improved, dismantling the entire Head Start program, as the majority's proposal would do, is a huge leap backwards in the progress we've made for children in communities across the country. I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic substitute and to preserve this great program.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend Mr. Hobson and Ranking Member Visclosky for offering a strong bill that ensures that the United States continues to have a robust nuclear deterrent and the infrastructure to support it. As the former ranking member of the Armed Services panel to oversee the National Nuclear Security Administration, I am especially pleased that the committee report highlights the need for the NNSA to focus on its primary mission of maintaining the viability of the existing stockpile. The committee's cuts in funding for new nuclear weapons and for the robust nuclear earth penetrator are vital steps toward restoring U.S. leadership in fighting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, not only does the military not have any requirements for these weapons, but developing them would send a strong signal to other countries that the pursuit of nuclear weapons is legitimate and necessary. At a time when we are facing a changing security environment it would seem prudent to strengthen the core missions of the nuclear establishment such as our science based stockpile stewardship rather than embark on potentially dangerous new missions that would have a destabilizing effect. In this regard, I am pleased to see full support for the National Ignition Facility, a key Stockpile Stewardship Program facility which is being build in my district. Recently NIF brought the first four of its 192 beams online and has demonstrated full power and full performance on those beams. Those four beams now constitute the most powerful laser in the world. NIF will begin to do experiments to provide data to the Stockpile Stewardship Program this year--while it continues to commission additional laser beams on the path to full facility operation in FY2008. A critical element of the committee's action is the support for growth in the Experimental Support Technologies, which provide the technologies to use NIF. I also strongly urge the chairman to work with me and other members of the Armed Services Committee to move forward on the work necessary to refurbish the W-80. The W-80 fills a unique niche in our nuclear deterrent. The work called for in the budget request will lay the groundwork for improving the safety, security and reliability of the W-80. It is important that the budget request for the NNSA work on the W-80 be supported so that the production plant work can be effectively managed. Finally, I am concerned about the language in section 301 mandating that the Department of Energy automatically compete labs that have been managed by a particular contract for more than 50 years. The decision to chose a given contractor to manage a particular laboratory with its specific needs, is an exceedingly complex one, involving all manner of judgments concerning the relative value of factors such as the ability of a given contractor to attract and retain the strong technical workforce required to focus on issues of supreme national security importance to our country. These issues deserves in-depth scrutiny and study, not an automatic competition of the contract. Neither the Department of Defense, NSF or NASA treats its contractors this way, and I am concerned that DOE would be asked to do so. On the water side, I understand the committee's rationale for not including funding for the CALFED program. The program must be authorized by Congress this year and I am working with my colleagues from California to advance a comprehensive reauthorization bill this year. The federal government must be an active partner with California to heal the Delta's ecosystem and prepare for the state's growing population. I appreciate the committee's hard work and urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time. Mr Speaker, I would like to offer my strong support for the motion to instruct which sends an important message that it is the will of the House to maintain the ban on development of low-yield nuclear weapons, and I commend the chairman of the full committee for his initiative to work with us on this. 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. Today, however, the United States is addressing the threat of weapons of mass destruction from North Korea, India, Pakistan, and a growing list of countries. As we have seen in Afghanistan and in the global war on terrorism, when the United States leads with a purpose, the rest of the world will follow. And just as the world follows our lead on tackling common enemies, it also reacts when we take provocative and destabilizing action. I believe strongly that until our war fighters have a military requirement for a new nuclear weapon or have exhausted conventional alternatives, Congress should maintain its ban on the development of such weapons. Preventing the development of new nuclear weapons would not affect the RNEP study with focuses on existing warheads. It would not prevent any of the ideas that are currently being explored regarding missile systems. In addition to having no military requirement for them, new nuclear weapons are not the answer to threats being used to justify them. Nuclear weapons of any yield have a limited penetration ability and 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 would kill tens of thousands of civilians and hinder friendly troops. Preserving the ban on new nuclear weapons is a small step that would also help restore the belief that the United States intends to fight the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. I hope my colleagues would support this motion to recommit.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

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

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the coauthor of this amendment. (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering with the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) would provide a small, but vital, fix to the cumbersome process that governs the export of commercial communication satellites to our closest allies. The amendment is identical to language that Senator Enzi offered and that was passed as part of the Senate foreign relations bill. Under current law, satellite sellers must obtain a license from the State Department just to talk to a prospective buyer of a product. When a foreign buyer calls and asks for basic information, the company cannot immediately answer any questions. The current process means American companies have to wait for weeks or months to call back potential customers. This is undermining an industry we used to dominate at a time when our economy is in a major slump. As the COMSAT market continues to shrink, we want to ensure that U.S. companies are left standing. This amendment levels the playing field between the U.S. satellite industry and its foreign competitors. Under exception provided by our amendment, exporters of commercial communications satellites would be allowed to provide marketing information only to member countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and Japan, Australia and New Zealand. It would not affect any of the licensing requirements for countries like China and would keep in place all of the national security statutes put in place by Congress. The amendment also improves the U.S. export control system. It enables the State Department to focus its resources on the transfer of truly sensitive data and allows U.S. companies to communicate with our allies internationally and friends in a timely and cost-effective manner about basic marketing information. Our national security is closely linked to our technological leadership which guarantees the military advantage we have today, but our national security is being undermined by a sick industry that is falling behind its competition because of onerous bureaucracies that are doing nothing to protect our national security. I urge my colleagues to support the Tauscher-Bereuter amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to simply remind my colleagues that, first and foremost, this is marketing information that is declassified. Second, this is information that would only be allowed to be transmitted to NATO allies, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand. I think it is very important that we keep the controls that we have in place for any kind of technology transfer for places like China, Russia, and others, but this is for our own allies. While we have watched this business that we dominated at one time leave our shores and go to foreign competitors, I think it is very important that we keep our strict controls, that we keep the State Department involved in the licensing, but in these declassified marketing materials that everyone agrees are basically innocent, that we should allow them to be disseminated so that we can keep the small part of the business that we have left. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, the funding level in the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill is woefully insufficient. It fails to meet the needs of school, and our children will end up paying the price. While the majority has talked again and again about reforming and improving education, they have not provided the funds to do so. This bill underfunds Impact Aid for school districts that are serving our military families in this country by $583 million that are required by the No Child Left Behind Act. It is irresponsible to take credit for passing the No Child Left Behind Act, but then refuse to provide the money to fund the programs, especially to the level that Congress and the President committed to just 2 years ago. There are thousands of men and women from my district at Travis Air Force Base who deserve to have better schools for their children while they are fighting in Operation Iraqi Freedom. They deserve a top-notch education for their kids. I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule for the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill and demand that we fully fund Impact Aid.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and to defeat the previous question. This will allow us to debate a much more realistic and fiscally responsible Medicare bill. It is clear that the status quo is not working to make prescription drugs affordable for seniors. It is also clear that our country's economic situation does not give Congress a lot of options for solving this growing problem. Under the Dooley-Tauscher plan, seniors do not have to pay a premium, and the generous low-income benefit far exceeds the one offered by the majority. For seniors whose income is 150 percent of the Federal poverty level, roughly equal to $13,400, they will only have a 10 percent cost share. Furthermore, any prescription drug plan needs to be part of Medicare, which seniors like and trust. Our plan is managed by Medicare. The benefit is integrated into Medicare part B, and every beneficiary gets a guaranteed benefit at no additional cost. By leveraging the buying power of all seniors, our plan allows every single person on Medicare to benefit from immediate drug savings regardless of how many prescriptions they are filling a month. Finally, Mr. Speaker, our seniors need to be protected from catastrophic drug costs. Seniors who have high drug costs will be able to access the full benefit sooner because our plan focuses on the total cost of the drug, not discounted price paid out of pocket. Our plan has an extra safety net for those who really need it, people with total drug costs of $4,000 a year. Under our bill, companies that currently provide prescription drug coverage to their retirees will have the incentive to continue doing so because the Federal Government will assume the risk of drug coverage once beneficiaries reach their deductible. We need to be smart and realistic about how we can provide every American senior with prescription drug coverage. Given the current economic situation, our plan is the one that provides this coverage and is fiscally achievable. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and support the Dooley-Tauscher substitute.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule for the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004. I commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), who are doing valuable work by looking into the intelligence surrounding Operation Iraqi Freedom. By necessity and design, their work is classified. I feel strongly that their work must continue, but that this issue is beyond the scope of a single committee and is of such importance to our democracy that responsible public hearings by a select committee of users of intelligence are necessary. Members of relevant committees such as the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on International Relations, who use intelligence to make policy decisions every day, provide valuable perspective that should be part of a broader review. As a member of the Committee on Armed Services, I am a user of intelligence, and the information I receive shapes the decisions I make for many men and women in uniform every day. Members of Congress and military planners need to have confidence that intelligence is objective and provides a sound basis for policy decisions. No decision is more grave than sending American fighting men and women into harm's way. We have a duty to be certain that public policy that we base these decisions on is credible and real. With American and British soldiers continuing to be killed at an alarming rate in Iraq, we have to be sure that our intelligence is providing a realistic view of the threats they have. Having open hearings by a select committee of policymakers who are customers of intelligence would not only allow Congress to reclaim its vital oversight role, but help convince the American people that their elected officials and President have the right tools to make the right decisions to protect them. Mr. Speaker, this is not about the purview of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. I deeply respect the work that the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence does, but with all due respect, as a customer of that intelligence, the classified work that the committee does needs to remain classified, but after that work is declassified and moves to the National Security Agency, to the Pentagon, to the military planners, to the differing alphabet soups of agencies, who then take that classified work and begin to shape public policy with it, once that work becomes declassified and is starting to be moved into the public policy realm, I and others in relevant committees, like the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on International Relations, need to understand what exactly is being done to that intelligence to either promote it or shape it to perhaps fit a preconceived decision by people in the administration or in other parts of the policy-making chain. I want to know if the intelligence work that is being done so ably by our intelligence people and the analysis done by them has been shaped in any way that would change my mind when I make these decisions. That is why I think we need a select committee. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule, but I support the work of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Vic Sood, General Manager of the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA), as he prepares to retire after 32 years of service in public transportation. For his unyielding commitment and dedication to running what has become one of the most effectively operated transit agencies in the entire Bay Area region, I would like to thank my good friend Vic Sood. The skillful craftsmanship of his work will endure far into the future. Before moving to California, Vic Sood made many contributions to the public in the state of Washington. He was responsible for getting transit legislation passed into law in 1974 and 1975, which allowed for the formation and financing of new public transit systems, known as Public Transit Benefit Areas. In September 1976, Vic Sood was appointed to serve as the first Executive Director of Community Transit after voters in Snohomish County, Washington, approved a sales tax increase to finance the Snohomish County Public Transit Benefit Area Corporation in June of that year. As a result of the legislation which he had labored to get passed, many new transit agencies were likewise created throughout the state of Washington. While Executive Director of Snohomish County Community Transit, Vic Sood also served as President of the Washington State Transit Association in 1982 and 1983 and served as a regional representative to the American Public Transit Association's (APTA) Board of Directors in 1983 and 1984. Subsequent to the formation of LAVTA in May 1986, as a Joint Powers Agency of the cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore and Alameda County for the provision of public transit in the area, Vic Sood was hired as the General Manager and started work in January 1986. LAVTA began operating with only nine leased buses in 1986. Under Sood's management and with a quickly growing Livermore Valley, the system expanded to meet the area's needs and by 1990 the agency had placed an order for 34 new buses. By 1996, LAVTA was serving one million passengers each year. In 2001, it was two million. LAVTA has grown to a fleet of 75 buses and 16 paratransit vehicles during Vic Sood's tenure. Currently, Vic Sood serves as a member of APTA's Legislative Committee, Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) Task Force and the Small Operators Steering Committee. He is also a member of the Legislative Committee of the California Transit Association and a Board Member of RIDES for Bay Area Commuters, Inc., the San Francisco Bay Area Partnership Board and California Transit Insurance Pool. It has been my great pleasure to have worked with Vic Sood over the past seven years on transit issues both local and regional in perspective. He has been a supportive colleague and a good friend. I wish him and his wife, Manu, good fortune in their future endeavors together. Vic Sood has made a substantial and positive impact upon those communities for which he has worked during his remarkable career. He has been an invaluable servant to the public. His tireless efforts will not soon be forgotten by those who worked with him or for him. It is with honor that I commend Vic Sood for his service to the community and to the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority for over 17 years.