Ellen Tauscher

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced the Safer Guns for Safer Communities Act along with my colleague Carolyn McCarthy. This bill takes a commonsense approach to gun safety by encouraging gun manufacturers to engage in better and safer business practices. The Safer Guns for Safer Communities Act is modeled after the historic Smith & Wesson Agreement. Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and several local government entities entered into an agreement with Smith & Wesson to manufacture and distribute safer guns. The agreement was revolutionary in nature, but commonsense in approach. It includes many items that Congress has debated at one point or another: child safety locks, high capacity ammunition clips, and ``smart'' gun technology. The Agreement also requires that firearms include additional safety features such as chamber load indicators and a hidden serial number which will help convict criminals using them. Since the Smith & Wesson Agreement was announced in March, nearly 600 police departments and community leaders have pledged to only buy firearms that meet minimal safety standards. We must remember that gun safety reform is not taking guns away from law abiding citizens who are legitimate gun owners. Instead, it is about the little girl in Michigan who was shot by her 6-year-old classmate. It is about the 13 children killed by their peers at Columbine High School over a year ago. And it is about Antioch's Larry Kiepert who was shot by his neighbor. To create an incentive for more manufacturers to adopt these safety measures, The Safer Guns for Safer Communities Act provides grants to law enforcement agencies who purchase their weapons from manufacturers who agree to adhere to the better business practices similar to the ones in the Agreement. In addition, law enforcement officers who must purchase their own weapons would be able to come together through a qualified association of officers to apply for these grants. This provision benefits officers who are required to purchase their own weapons. The program would last 3 years and provides $50 million each year to 50 grantees. A study would then assess the impact of purchasing weapons from responsible manufacturers on gun-related crime and accidents. This Congress has refused to take action on any meaningful gun safety proposal. Perhaps the reason for their inaction can be best explained by the overpowering influence of the gun lobby. Our job in Congress is to promote responsibility, ensure safety, and educate the American people when it comes to owning, selling, and manufacturing firearms. It is time for children and families to once again feel safe in our schools, our homes, and our neighborhoods. It is time for our workforce to once again feel safe at work or during their commute home.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make clear my opposition to a provision originally in the Senate's version of the Defense Authorization bill. This provision authorizes a study on a new type of weapon, one that many have started to call ``mini-nukes.'' The purpose of this study is for the government to consider a new weapon capable of destroying underground bunkers. Proponents of the provision say that the bunkers in question are used by States of Concern to protect their leaders in times of crisis, or to store stockpiles of biological or chemical weapons. They also say the weapons are an improvement over prior systems since the release they cause of chemical or biological agents into the environment is negligible. Therefore, proponents argue, we must have these weapons. The problem is that we don't need new nuclear weapons; the Defense Department has not even identified a requirement for this type of weapon. What is more, I know from top-secret discussions with the Pentagon that we have other, non-nuclear ways of destroying and disabling the underground bunkers. Studying a new weapon only takes us one step closer to manufacturing it. And this is one weapon we do not need to manufacture. One of the major concerns I have with this study is that it focuses on making a ``usable'' nuclear weapon, or one that does not harm civilians. But that is ridiculous--no nuclear weapon can side-step mass destruction and the harming of civilians. By today's nuclear standards, the bomb we used on Hiroshima was tiny. But look at the destruction those bombs caused--even though the city has been rebuilt, the area still has a disproportionate number of children with mental deficiencies. Finally, as a supporter of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, I want to point out that provisions like this one only take us closer to the resumption of tests. Those who ``study'' any new weapon not already in our stockpile will naturally want to test that particular weapon. The fact is, this provision is a bad one. It we are truly interested in nuclear nonproliferation and in downsizing our own nuclear stockpile, the last thing we should be doing is laying the plans for a new weapon.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for yielding the time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4205, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. And I also want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member, for their leadership. I would like to offer my best wishes to all the retiring colleagues from this committee, especially the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Pickett), my friend. I want to specifically address the provisions of the act relating to the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration. Mr. Speaker, the establishment of the Committee on Armed Services' NNSA oversight panel is a clear message of Congress' intent to more aggressively exercise its oversight responsibility in an area that is crucial to our national security. This resurgence of meaningful interest in the DOE defense nuclear activities will have a lasting impact on an activity that has been entangled in bureaucratic kudzu since its inception. Starting with the establishment of a 3-year term of office for the NNSA's first administrator, General Gordon, the provisions of this bill represent an important step towards building an agency that runs efficiently and that effectively protects our Nation's nuclear secrets. Within the resources available, this bill redresses issues relating to funding shortfalls in the production facilities and the laboratories. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the bill includes a significant increase over the budget requests for the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore. In fact, it also provides some limited relief for the significant infrastructure improvement backlog. Unfortunately, this bill does not provide relief for all the challenges the administration faces. I look forward to the study and enactment of specific legislation that will ease the difficulties of recruiting and retaining the world-class scientific minds that the laboratories need and this Nation deserves. Mr. Speaker, I also want to note for the full House that the panel's accomplishments would not have been possible without the strong leadership of the panel chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), and the cooperation and support of our colleagues on the panel. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to strongly support H.R. 4205.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I wish to submit into the record a speech by Deputy Secretary of Defense Rudy de Leon. This speech takes a look at the state of America's military, its accomplishments over the last decade, its challenges in recruiting and retaining the best people, and the realities we face in building the next generation of our fighting force. Perhaps most importantly, Secretary de Leon does a superb job of illustrating the success that can come from Congress and the Administration working together. In the areas of defense and foreign policy, we must never divert from our traditional approach: that politics must stop at the water's edge. Mr. Speaker, I hope that we will never deviate from that wisdom. Over the last eight years, the President and the Congress have come together in the area of defense policy, and the results have been stupendous. I know from my own experiences on the Armed Services Committee how valuable a bipartisan approach is, and I thank Secretary de Leon for articulating the concepts so well. Remarks by Deputy Secretary of Defense Rudy de Leon, Defense Orientation Conference Association October 4, 2000 Donald Bickle [DOCA President], John Olsen [DOCA Vice President], thank you both for the opportunity to join you today, for your leadership of this outstanding organization and for your service to this nation. John was in the Air Force and Donald was in the Navy during both the Second World War and Korea. We are grateful to you both. Members of the Board, members of DOCA and spouses, ladies and gentlemen. First, allow me to begin with two simple words to every one of you. Thank you. Most of you will recall a time not so long ago when virtually every American had a family member or a friend in uniform and when what Tom Brokaw calls the Greatest Generation shared the lessons of their lives with the generations that followed. Today, in an era when the military is smaller and less visible in our society, you--the members of that Greatest Generation--have been a bridge like no other. As informed observers with experience and insights into the military, and as respected and powerful voices within your communities, you have been in a unique position to help the nation understand the sacrifices and needs of our sons and daughters in uniform. And that is why I wanted to speak to you today. I thought I might begin this morning by painting two pictures, pulled directly from recent headlines and world events, that capture a fundamental truth of our time. The first picture is of the Former Republic of Yugoslavia. It is a picture of an entire people standing up and speaking out, of workers putting down their tools and walking out of their factories, of truckers and taxi drivers blockading roads, and of tens of thousands of average citizens taking to the streets to demand that their votes be counted and that the dictator who brought such misery and death to an entire region be ousted. And as this drama unfolds, the world hopes that a long, bloody chapter in the history of Europe might perhaps be coming to an end. The second picture is from a world away on the Korean Peninsula. It is a picture of the leaders of North and South meeting for the first time and of a historic ceremony to cut through the DMZ--the world's most fortified border--with a reopened railway and a historic highway along which trade will travel. It is a picture of families reuniting in tearful embraces after a half-century of separation and of North and South Korean athletes marching into the Olympic stadium in Sydney under a common flag for the first time. And as this drama unfolds, the world hopes that a long, sad chapter of division in Asia might perhaps be coming to an end. As different as these two pictures are, as distinct as the histories that have propelled these two nations to this epic moment, they share a common thread. Both would have been impossible without the presence, the persistence, and the determination of the United States Armed Forces So there's no more fitting time than now to consider how we reached this moment and to consider the great questions that will continue to face our nation in the future. What should our role be in the 21st Century? Is America's military ready? And how can we ensure that our forces can meet the immediate crises of today while at the same time, modernizing to meet the emerging threats of tomorrow? These are valid and profound questions for our nation. They demand thoughtful and honest answers. When it comes to America's Armed Forces, we need a candid and comprehensive portrait of the state of our military. And that is what I want to discuss with you this afternoon. Military readiness is a function of many factors, including the overall level of defense spending; the quality and quantity of those we recruit and retain; the capabilities of their equipment; and, finally, their ability to fulfill the missions we ask of them. To understand each of these is to understand the state of America's military at the dawn of the 21st Century. First, there is the spending this nation devotes to our men and women in uniform. I think if we look over our shoulders at the past decade, we see that there have been several great revolutions that have had a tremendous impact on our country and the world at large. There is the revolution in global affairs, most notably the collapse of the Soviet Union. With all the benefits of the Cold War's end came the burdens of being the world's sole superpower. As General [Hugh] Shelton [Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff] outlined to you this morning, soon we had fewer military personnel facing more missions, combining to levy unprecedented demands on our military men and women. Then there is the revolution in technology with its daily digital leaps that are transforming everything from how we communicate, to how we learn, to how we understand our universe. As Secretary [of Defense William] Cohen has said, information can indeed be the great equalizer, placing enormous power in the hands of the common citizen or consumer. At the same time, information can also be the great destabilizer, placing enormous and deadly power in the hands of those who wish us harm. And so we now also face the prospect of hackers launching daily assaults on our defense systems and our critical infrastructure. At the same time, there has been a revolution in demographics. Those born between 1965 and 1979--the so-called ``Generation X''--comprise one of the smallest groups of 18- 22 year olds, and, therefore, the smallest pool of potential recruits, since we started the All Volunteer Force in the 1970s. While the next wave--so-called ``Generation Y''--is considerably larger, it won't start having a major impact on recruiting until at least 2003. And then there is the revolution in our domestic financial affairs. We have balanced the budget and have eliminated deficits as a drain on our national security. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the decline in military spending did not start with the end of the Cold War. Rather, it started several years before with efforts to reduce the deficit-- specifically the Gramm-Rudman Deficit Reduction Act--in the late 1980s. Ten years ago when I was staff director of the House Armed Service Committee, and eight years ago when I entered the Pentagon, the overwhelming reality was the enormous budget deficit that hung over our heads. Few dared even think about real growth in spending or investment. Today, we have achieved a sea-change in our financial affairs. Because of hard economic decisions and deficit reduction, and because of the roaring economy, these decisions helped to unleash, those record deficits have now turned into record surpluses. That surplus has now allowed us to do something many through unlikely, if not impossible, even only a few years ago. With the President and Secretary of Defense working with the Congress, we are now making new investments in our military men and women totaling some $180 billion in just the last two years--the largest sustained increase in defense spending in fifteen years. Consider the second measure by which to measure readiness-- the quality and quantity of those we recruit and retain. The dynamic economy is pulling away many potential recruits and many of our highly skilled people. So we faced the twin challenges of too many people leaving the force and too few people entering the force. That's why a significant part of that $180 billion increase in defense spending is going toward dramatic improvements in quality of life. With respect to pay, all our men and women have now received the largest pay raise since the early 1980s. Others with special skills and many in their mid- careers have received additional raises and bonuses on top of that, some as much as 5 percent more. With respect to benefits, we have made dramatic changes. We have fixed and improved military retirement, restoring benefits so our people can once again retire with 50 percent of their pay after 20 years of service and have a powerful incentive to stay in the force longer. With respect to housing, we're making progress as well. I know that some of you visited Travis Air Force Base in August, where you saw substandard housing in an area where the basic housing allowance we provide our forces sometimes isn't enough to match the high cost of living. Well, we've modified the allowance to better reflect the actual cost of off-base housing. And now we're making a truly historic change. This year, we are going to reduce from 19 percent to 15 percent what many of our people pay out of pocket for off- base housing. Within five years, we plan to eliminate those expenses entirely and we're going to devote $3 billion to do it. With respect to health care, we have made, and will continue to make, improvements in an area that consistently ranks among the top concerns of our forces and their families. I know that in March some of you visited Fort Sam Houston in Texas, home to the U.S. Army Medical Command. Our TRICARE health system is now fully operational in the continental United But just like the nation as a whole, we're grappling with sky-rocketing health care costs and a growing population of older Americans--our retired veterans. So Congress is about to pass--with the Administration's support--an expansion of a pharmacy benefit so that our military retirees can afford the cost of their prescription drugs. Health care will continue to be a hard issue, but we will continue to work hard with Congress in keep faith with our retired veterans who served their country so nobly. And Secretary Cohen and particularly General Shelton, continue to work with Congress in this area. In many ways our force is only as strong as the families behind it. And because so many of our personnel are also parents, we've also devoted tremendous time and attention to ensuring strong military families. As a result, our schools recently led the nation in a national survey on writing, with our overseas schools coming in second to only one state, and our stateside schools coming in year. In recent years, students in our schools have scored well above the national average at all grade levels and in all subjects. At the same time, by adding $190 million to child care programs over the past six years, we now have a child care system that has been described by many, including the New York Times, as ``a model for the nation.'' Thanks to all these efforts to improve quality life, we're now witnessing some important improvements in retention. However, it's not only the fundamental rewards that keep our people in uniform, it's the personal reward of doing the job they were trained to do. In fact, those soldiers serving in places like the Balkans have some of the highest re- enlistment rates in our armed forces. The services have already worked to relieve the stress of current operations. In the future, our challenge will be to ensure that the stress on our forces and their families doesn't turn that motivation to serve into a motivation to leave. We want our forces to stay because they by almost every measure, the quality of our men and women is higher than it's ever been. With more of the force staying in the service for longer than 10 years, they are more experienced than ever. With more high school diplomas and more advanced degrees to their name, they are more educated than ever. So while very real challenges remain in keeping quality people, America needs to know what General Shelton told the U.S. Senate last week and perhaps again to you today. He said, ``In my 37 years in uniform, I have never been around better soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines.'' Our efforts to improve quality of life have also improved recruiting. In addition to the demographic revolution and lure of the private sector I mentioned, the causes [of our recruiting challenge] are many. They include the ever- increasing value of a college education and the ever- increasing availability of tuition assistance that has now made college available to virtually every high school graduate who wants to attend. So what did we do when we wanted to recruit more young people? We put more recruiters on the streets. We created higher bonuses for enlistment. We increased educational incentives. And we tailored advertising and more spending to reach out to young people. As a result, we're now seeing a real turnaround in recruitment. Just last week, the Army enlisted its 80,000th soldier for the fiscal year ending September. Shortfalls indeed remain in some areas like naval flight officers and computer specialists. But for the first time in three years, every service not only met their active duty recruiting goal, they exceeded them, and not only in terms of quantity, but in terms of quality as well. For example, over 90% of our recruits hold high school diplomas, much higher than the national average. So while challenges remain, America needs to know that we're still recruiting the best and brightest this nation has to offer. Of course, just as important as the quality of our men and women, is the third measure of readiness--the quality of their equipment. The end of the Cold War was a time of transition for our force. But by 1997 we knew that a 13-year decline in procurement spending would have to end. So we ended it. As General Shelton noted to you this morning, this year we achieved our $60 billion in annual funding for the new weapons, tools and technologies our warriors need. Over the next five years we plan to increase that to $70 billion. And in the years beyond, building the advanced force of the future means that procurement will have to remain a national priority. That's why we are investing in the next generation of aircraft. We're investing $38 billion for the revolutionary V-22 Osprey that takes off and lands like a helicopter but flies like an airplane, allowing our forces to be more mobile. We're investing $45 billion for the massive C-17 transport that carries more cargo to less accessible places, like those airfields in Albania during the air war over Kosovo. We're investing $62 billion for the F-22 that will ensure our supremacy of the skies for decades to come. And over the long-term, we're investing in our largest acquisition program, the Joint Strike Fighter. America needs to know that all this investment is fueling an unprecedented Revolution in Military Affairs. Indeed, it's not enough to spend more, we also have to spend smarter. And we're doing both. The Navy is improving the capabilities of its ships and aircraft, increasing their striking power by tying them together with the most sophisticated technologies. The Air Force is transforming itself into an expeditionary force and--as the world saw in Kosovo--making greater use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles that reduce the risk to pilots and increase our intelligence and reconnaissance capabilities. The Marines are revolutionizing their capabilities by honing their skills in urban warfare. And, of course, the Army has embarked on a historic transformation to dramatically enhance the speed, mobility, and firepower of our soldiers. That's why we worked with Congress to secure more than $7 billion for the next four years to propel that transformation, including more than $4 billion for Interim Armored Vehicles that will be more agile and lethal America needs to know that we're also transforming the Defense Department to better support this new military. We created the Joint Forces command in Norfolk to improve the ability of the services to operate together and to experiment with the most advanced technologies and tactics. We created a Defense Threat Reduction Agency to pull together our counter- proliferation efforts. We created a special task force to advise and assist communities should a chemical or biological weapon ever be used on American soil. And we created another task force to defend our computer systems as part of our normal warfighting mission. As different as all these efforts may be, the result is the same--our men and women will be safer and our military will be stronger. I've mentioned many of the investments we're making in our military. But I would suggest that just as important as what we should be spending is what we should not be spending. Consider the money lost to inefficiencies within the Defense Department itself. That's why we began a Defense Reform Initiative that is now saving us tens of billions of dollars. Consider the money wasted on excess infrastructure. As a result of the four rounds of base realignment and closure to date, we expect to save more than $25 billion by the year 2003. Those of you who visited Kelly Air Force Base in March know how base closure, if done right, can mean the opening of new prosperity. The country and the Congress need to know that we can't build a lean, agile 21st Century military if it's dragged down by an oversized, outdated 20th Century infrastructure. The country and the Congress need to know that two more rounds of BRAC would save us $3 billion a year, billions that could be better spent on our forces and their families. Which brings me to the fourth and final measure of readiness I want to address--and perhaps the most important of all--the ability of our men and women to complete the missions we ask of them. As you know from your visits to bases and installations around the country, and as the Joint Chiefs told Congress last week, and which I believe General Shelton reiterated to you this morning, our front-line units--the first to fight in the event of a conflict on the Korean Peninsula or in the Persian Gulf and the Balkans--are capable. Our forces can fulfill our strategy of fighting two major theater wars. And in the future, we should experience an increasing trend in readiness. And so if the question is asked, ``Is America's military ready if we call?'' We need only look to the times when we have called them. Those of you who went to Guatemala last year know that when Hurricane Mitch ripped across Central America, America's military was ready. As General [Charlie] Wilhelm [then Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Southern Command] told you, the millions of tons of food and supplies that U.S. forces flew in and gave out saved countless lives and helped to literally rebuild entire regions from the ground up. When Slobodan Milosevic unleashed a wave of terror in Kosovo last year, America's military was ready. We had soldiers in neighboring countries preventing a wider war and airlifting tons of food and supplies to save thousands of Kosovar refugees. We had sailors and marines on ships and submarines in the Adriatic, and naval aviators flying into those dangerous Balkans skies. And we had airmen engaging in the most precise campaign in the history of air power. They conducted the vast majority of those 38,000 NATO sorties. They took to the skies for 78 days with only two planes lost and not a single combat casualty. And while that record was not achieved without stress on certain assets, that is a historic achievement of which our forces and the American people should be enormously proud. Indeed, the true measure of America's military is the job they do every day. In short, America needs to know that the U.S. Armed Forces are the best trained, best educated, best led, most respected and finest fighting force the world has ever seen. So in closing, I want to recite a page from America's past that I believe points the way to ensuring our military strength in the future. Half a century ago, this nation stood at the hinge of history, an unprecedented time of both promise and peril. There was the promise, our victory in the Second World War. But there was also the peril, a dawning Cold War. And America's very survival demanded that we think anew and act anew. And so to navigate the shoals of the century that lay ahead, Arthur Vanderberg, a Republican Senator from Michigan, joined with Harry Truman, a Democratic President from Missouri, and the nation came together around a common foreign and defense policy to defend freedom and to create a Marshall Plan and an alliance called NATO that would eventually win the Cold War. Today, in the long wake of our triumph in that long struggle, America again stands at the hinge of history. Again there is the promise, of the world's sole economic and military superpower. Again there is the peril, the new threats of this new century. And to chart the nation's course in our time, William Cohen, a Republican Senator from Maine, joined with Bill Clinton, a Democratic President from Arkansas, to help restore a spirit of bi-partisanship to defense policy and to ensure that when it comes to our men and women in uniform, politics does indeed stop at the water's edge. Ladies and gentlemen, in recent years we have recognized that truth. We have worked with Congress to support and strengthen our military. We have upheld our sacred pledge to care for America's sons and daughters who wear this nation's uniform. That is the message I wanted to bring to you today. That is the message I hope you carry back to your communities and the country. Thank you very much.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the Sesquicentennial of California's admission into the Union as the nation's 31st state on September 9, 1850. California's 10th Congressional District has been instrumental in the state's history. In the 1800s, my district had a strong connection with the Old West, populated by Americans during California's Gold Rush and a center for miners. The 10th Congressional District became one of the main routes to the gold fields and quickly became a mercantile stopover for miners seeking their fortune in the Mother Lode. Many of those miners purchased land in this beautiful area. In 1854 Daniel and Andrew Inman founded Danville when they bought 400 acres with their mining earnings. By 1858 the new Danville community grew and thrived, complete with a blacksmith, hotel, wheelwright, general store, and a post office. The City of Lafayette was well known throughout California in the early 1860 as a stop for the Pony Express from April 3, 1860 to late October 1861. The 200-mile trail served as the fastest mail delivery between St. Joseph, Missouri and Sacramento, California. The Town of Moraga was named for Joaquin Moraga, the grandson of Joseph Joaquin Moraga who was the second in command of the Anza Expedition of 1776, the founder of San Francisco, Mission Delores and the founder and first commandant of the Presidio. In 1835, he received a 13,316-acre land grant from the Mexican government, which included parts of Orinda and Lafayette. On a hill overlooking the Moraga Valley, Joaquin Moraga built an adobe home, thought to be the oldest building in Contra Costa County. Today the 10th Congressional District maintains its historic roots combining clusters of narrow roads and early buildings with 21st Century high technology office parks. The citizens in the 10th Congressional District are among the highest skilled and educated workforce in the nation. While they are at the epicenter of the high- tech economy, they are also committed historic preservation and protecting the natural physical environment in one of the nation's more desirable places to live. The 10th Congressional District is committed to preserving its past and looking forward to the next one hundred- fifty years as a part of this great nation.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a very special leader in my district. Dr. Robert Fisher has been involved in education for 36 years as a teacher and administrator. As Superintendent, Dr. Fisher has successfully worked for the betterment of the entire school community. Dr. Bob Fisher emphasized increased student achievement marked by 95 percent of all third graders reading at grade level by the end of third grade, distinguished performance by schools on the statewide assessments, and four schools receiving recognition as State Distinguished Schools. Dr. Fisher established a partnership with St. Mary's College, the Annenberg Foundation, and the Hewlett Foundation. These public-private partnerships have helped Dr. Fisher to better serve the school community and increase literacy rates among students. I take great pride in honoring Dr. Bob Fisher's dedication and leadership. His hard work has created high standards, rigorous curricula and excellent teachers throughout the District. Under his direction, Castro Valley Unified School District has served as a model for schools in Alameda County and throughout the State of California. I believe that school districts across the country should follow Dr. Fisher's example and take the opportunity to learn from his successful and innovative ways.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an outstanding public-private partnership in my district and all the participants who share a deep commitment for the education of our children. Castro Valley Unified School District and St. Mary's College of California have developed and implemented a partnership that has led to a comprehensive literacy development program at kindergarten through post-graduate collegiate levels. I commend St. Mary's College of California for forming a public- private partnership with the Castro Valley Unified School District. This commitment to the betterment of children and education by extending professional learning experiences and teaching strategies has greatly increased the school district's ability to deliver a comprehensive literacy program. Because of their efforts, almost all Castro Valley Unified School District students completing third grade are at or above reading level, student achievement is up, literacy attainment is heightened, and teaching strategies are being redefined and better directed. I take great pride in honoring the dedication and professional leadership that St. Mary's College has taken in establishing this partnership. The partnership has helped expand the role of the public school teacher to a researcher, writer, and facilitator and created a model for successful literacy teacher-training programs. I believe that this public-private partnership should serve as a model to school districts and colleges across the country in order to create higher standards of literacy and literacy education at kindergarten through post-graduate collegiate levels.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, as the Congresswoman representing eastern Contra Costa County and the Tri-Valley area of Alameda County, I rise today to express my firm belief that the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system should be extended to Antioch and Livermore, California. While I am aware and understand that there are those who want to extend BART only to the South Bay, I must remind them that the families and businesses of the Antioch and Livermore areas also need BART and have been paying their hard- earned dollars into the BART system for almost four decades. As a very large number of our commuters know, getting to and around Silicon Valley, more often than not, is a very difficult problem. This year, state and regional planners have begun deciding on the next generation of rail and road improvements for the region to address the traffic congestion problems. Furthermore, it is clear from the Governor's transportation plan and proposed budget that BART to San Jose is going to receive certain consideration. However, that does not mean that Antioch and Livermore citizens, who have made significant financial investments into the BART system, should be overlooked. Moreover, any new communities who seek BART service must first buy into the system. During the next few months, I will be working closely with the Governor as well as state and Bay Area planners on a regional transit plan. One thing is certain: in order to successfully build any and all of these very expensive extensions, we must unite as a region and accept one common regional transit plan. As the only Bay Area Member of Congress on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I know that regional unity is the necessary key in securing the federal and state transportation funds we need to build these important transit projects. When we are competing for scarce federal dollars with other urban centers, we cannot afford to waste our time and resources arguing among each other. Mr. Speaker, I am confident that any regional plan will incorporate the history of BART with the equity of its stakeholders. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee as well as our Bay Area planners to develop the next generation of transit and road projects to meet the ever-growing needs of our region.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, well, here they go again. Today, the gun lobby and their congressional friends are again trying to hijack the will of the American people. Since the Smith & Wesson deal was announced, over 500 police departments and community leaders have pledged to buy only firearms that meet at least minimal safety standards, standards much like the ones included in this deal. For some inexplicable reason, gun safety threatens some of my colleagues in this Chamber. Instead of obstructing responsible gun manufacturing as this amendment would do, we should be encouraging it. As parents and legislators, our job should be to promote responsibility, ensure safety and educate the American people when it comes to owning, selling and manufacturing firearms. It is certainly not our job to get in the way of responsible Americans who want responsible gun safety standards. Mr. Chairman, it is time for children to once again feel safe in our schools and our neighborhoods. And it is time for this Congress to once again defeat this reckless amendment.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, today marks the occasion of a significant scientific achievement. Today, scientists at Livermore National Laboratory have started assembling the world's most powerful computer. This computer, known as ASCI White, delivered to Livermore on 28 tractor-trailer trucks, is capable of 12 trillion calculations per second. Mr. Speaker, that is more than three times faster than the most powerful computer in existence today. One specific achievement of this endeavor is the collaboration it embodies. ASCI White is the product of work by IBM and our national labs, and the computer will now aid the Department of Energy in the work of simulating nuclear explosions without conducting live tests. Surely, this super computer is a model for the marvelous work that results from strong private-public partnerships. Mr. Speaker. I submit the following article from the San Francisco Chronicle to be reprinted in the Congressional Record. And on behalf of this body, I would like to extend our congratulations to IBM, Livermore Lab, and all of the other agencies and individuals who contributed to this superb accomplishment. [From the San Francisco Chronicle, June 29, 2000] IBM Assembling Explosive New Supercomputer Processors To Mimic Nuclear Detonations at Livermore Lab (Carrie Kirby) Technicians at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory have begun assembling the world's most powerful supercomputer, the first sections of which were delivered by International Business Machines Corp. Monday. The 8,100-processor computer, ASCI White, will be used to simulate nuclear explosions to maintain the nation's weapons stockpile. Exploding real nuclear bombs for testing purposes has been forbidden since the 1996 signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The testing is required to ensure that the nation's aging stockpile of nuclear weapons still functions properly and is safely stored. The processors in the $110 million computer are no different than those found in high-end workstations used for engineering or design. But by putting 8,000 of them together in a box the size of two basketball courts, IBM has created a machine capable of 12.3 trillion operations per second--what scientists call a 12.3 teraflop computer. Armed with a calculator, it would take a human being 10 million years to complete the number of calculations ASCI White can do in one second. That's three or four times better than the previous titlist for world's most powerful supercomputer, ASCI Blue Pacific, a 3.8 teraflop machine also located at Lawrence Livermore. ASCI White is 1,000 times more powerful than Deep Blue, the IBM supercomputer that beat world chess champion Garry Kasparov in 1997, and 30,000 times more powerful than the average personal computer. Its memory could comfortably house the Library of Congress--twice. ASCI White is named for the Energy Department's Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative. Tractor trailers brought about a quarter of the massive computer to Lawrence Livermore Monday, and the rest will arrive during the summer. When it is complete, a team of several hundred scientists at Lawrence Livermore will use the computer to conduct the most realistic mock nuclear explosions ever. Limited memory and computer power meant that previous simulations used a simplified, two-dimensional model to approximate a three-dimensional explosion. ``A one-dimensional problem assumes that the surface of the Earth is uniform--all earth or all water,'' said David Nowak, the physicist who will lead the ASCI White program at Lawrence Livermore. Two-dimensional models would assume that the Earth is smooth, without mountains, valleys or complicated factors such as air currents. ``ASCI White allows us to go to three dimensions.'' Nowak has been anticipating getting his hands on the computer for two years, while 1,000 engineers at IBM's Poughkeepsie, N.Y., laboratory designed and built it. Yet he knows that despite its mind-boggling abilities, ASCI White is not powerful enough to simulate the blasts as realistically as scientists want. ``To actually do the problem, we need 100 teraflops,'' Nowak said. ``We think we can get that by 2004 or 2005.'' The ASCI program calls for two more supercomputers to be built. The first, with 30 teraflops, will go to Los Alamos, N.M., in about two years. The second, with 100 teraflops, is scheduled to be assigned to Livermore, said lab spokesman David Schwoegler.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I have concerns about the impact of language in the House Energy and Water bill that requires competition for aspects of the Department of Energy's (DOE) nonproliferation programs. DOE serves a unique role in our nation's nonproliferation efforts, and these efforts could be threatened by micro-management that forces a piecemeal approach to nonproliferation. The DOE laboratories fulfill an essential role in developing and integrating advanced scientific techniques and equipment into large-scale prototype systems which are critically necessary for our nonproliferation efforts. Unlike the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Defense (DOD), the DOE selects lead laboratories to serve as overall coordinators to facilitate these large-scale development projects. The laboratories rely on universities and industry to provide their unique expertise to make these efforts successful. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) out-sources approximately 20 percent of the funds it receives to universities and industry as appropriate with the sensitive nature of these projects. Many aspects of these projects are very sensitive and/or classified. Success requires a knowledge and focus on customer requirements, which may also be classified. They require a multi-disciplinary approach to accomplish deliverables to the intelligence and defense communities. DOE needs to maintain its flexibility in using universities and laboratories to meet its critical needs in this arena. This work is far too important to experiment with. Furthermore, we need to expeditiously pursue all possible advances to protect this nation against weapons of mass destruction. We need to empower the new National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Administrator, General John Gordon, and give him the necessary flexibility and the resources to strengthen our atomic energy defense and nonproliferation activities. We must give General Gordon the freedom to make the decisions he needs to make.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Kucinich-Ryan amendment. This amendment would eliminate funding for construction of the National Ignition Facility, called the NIF, at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. It would waste nearly $1 billion that has already been spent on development of this important project. It would contradict the action this House took last month when we authorized $175 million for the NIF. Most importantly, this amendment would severely cripple our Nation's arms control and nonproliferation efforts. The United States has made a commitment to end nuclear testing, and that commitment is a fundamental tenet of our national security. In the absence of testing, Mr. Chairman, the only way to maintain an effective, secure, reliable nuclear deterrent is through a science- based stockpile stewardship program. Mr. Chairman, the NIF is the cornerstone of that program. The NIF is the best way to ensure the safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons and to promote arms control and nonproliferation. I urge my colleagues very strongly to oppose the Kucinich-Ryan amendment.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a very special man in the 10th Congressional District. Mr. William Dinsmore of Alamo, California was recently awarded the 2000 Lifetime Achievement Award by the University of California, Santa Barbara Alumni Association. This 1968 graduate has indeed had a lifetime of achievement. From 1985 to 1995 he served as the President and Chief Executive Officer of The Learning Company and built it into the premier brand of home and school educational computer software products in the United States. Under his leadership, The Learning Company earned more than a hundred awards for the exceptional quality of its product line for children and adults and achieved an extraordinary record of revenue and profitability growth. In 1992, The Learning company was deemed a ``company to watch'' by Fortune Magazine and was honored by Forbes Magazine as one of the ``best small companies in the world.'' In 1995 the Learning Company was acquired by Softkey Corporation and yielded the highest price-to-sales ratio ever paid for a software company. This serves as testament to Mr. Dinsmore's success. He is currently using his skills and expertise as a private investor and advisor to select West Coast early-stage companies involved in the Internet, software, and consumer product area. I take great pride in honoring my constituent, William Dinsmore for his lifetime achievement. His contributions to business and to education have enriched the lives of many throughout the country.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, today I honor a very special leader in my district. Dr. James Perino has served as the Acalanes Union School District Superintendent for over a decade. As Superintendent, Dr. Perino has successfully worked for the betterment of the entire school community. Dr. James Perino emphasized challenging academic programs and electives, established benchmarks and standards, stressed professional development programs, increased the use of technology as a learning tool, campaigned for modernization and new construction funds, worked for win-win employee relationships, implemented the strategic planning process, and developed strong business and community partnerships. I take great pride in honoring Dr. James Perino's dedication and leadership. His hard work has created high standards, rigorous curricula and excellent teachers throughout the District. Under his direction, Acalanes Union School District has served as a model for schools in Contra Costa County and throughout the State of California. I believe that school districts across the country should follow Dr. Perino's example and take the opportunity to learn from his successful and innovative ways.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill, congratulating the Army on its 225th birthday. In this bill, we take this very appropriate opportunity to recognize the Army for the fighting force that it is, victorious in times of war, and persuasive in times of peace. This legislation recognizes the 225 years of service the Army has to its record. On June 14th, 1997, a group of colonists came together on the town square in Cambridge, Massachusetts. They did so under the authority of the Continental Congress, even before we had signed the Declaration of Independence. The group that came together that day, 225 years ago was the humble beginning that secured freedom for our country and has kept the peace since. I want to join my colleagues today in expressing our appreciation for the Army and the fine work it does every day--work that is done so flawlessly that it sometimes goes unnoticed. Many people may not realize that the Army today means more than fighting and winning wars on foreign territory. Today's Army means providing humanitarian relief to the flood victims in Mozambique. Today's Army means taking a proactive role to stop the flow of drugs into his country. Today's Army means homeland defense, because of which we are constantly prepared to respond to domestic threats of terrorism in our cities and on our subways. These are the kinds of operations that the Army performs every day. Mr. Speaker, since I became a member of Congress, I have been fortunate enough to interact with many of our brave men and women of the Army. And as an American, it gives me great pride to say that these individuals are some of smartest, selfless, and most courageous individuals I have ever come across. The relationship between the institution of the Army and its dedicated troops is one of mutual benefit. But the real winners here, as I have already said, are the American people. And it is on behalf of this country that I want to thank the Army and all of its loyal personnel. Happy 225th birthday, U.S. Army!

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of wonderful students from a high school in my district, Amador Valley High School. Twenty-one students from this school, along with their teacher, Matt Campbell, recently traveled to Washington, D.C. to compete in a national civics competition called ``We the People. . .'' This competition is designed to promote civic competence and responsibility. This program is not about textbooks and tests, but rather a process through which students learn to develop critical thinking and problem solving skills. I am proud that in my district, we have students who care not only about the social sciences, but also about being involved. The established tradition of excellence in this competition is a testament to the administrators and faculty at Amador Valley High School. It reflects the dedication of inspiring and enthusiastic teachers. In a time when we decry the state of our public schools, Amador Valley High School shines as a light of hope for the future of our nation. The vision of a first-year teacher, coupled with the determination of these bright students, brought them beyond the district and state finals to our nation's capital. I am proud of this Mr. Campbell and his students for their remarkable journey and their example of excellence. I would like to thank these students and their teacher for taking an interest in American government; I would like to thank the supportive communities in my district who made this trip possible; and, most of all, I would like to thank the parents of these wonderful students, who have set a standard of excellence for their communities. Congratulations to the students from Amador Valley High School, you are an attribute to our nation!

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise as the first of many on this side of the aisle that urge support of this rule to govern debate on extending permanent normal trade relations to China. We live in a rapidly changing and ever-shrinking world. Globalization has taken hold, whether we like it or not. Our challenge is to recognize the changes and to do our best to remain competitive and successful while we still retain our values, and today we can do both. This week China moved closer to finalizing entry into the World Trade Organization, a rules-based organization that gives the international community tremendous leverage to ensure that China complies with its trade agreements and moves to a more open and free society. China's recent trade pact with the European community raises the stakes for PNTR here in the United States. Our working families and companies deserve a level playing field in competing for business in China. Mr. Speaker, permanent normal trade relations with China is good for our businesses and even better for our working families. Moreover, many Chinese dissidents, including the Dalai Lama, have continually said that exposing the Chinese people to our way of life is the best way to encourage change in that country. I urge my colleagues to strongly support this rule and to even more strongly support permanent trade relations with China this afternoon.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote against the Cox- Markey amendment to the Defense Authorization bill. This amendment would undermine the framework agreed to by the United States and North Korea in 1994, and would have the effect of preventing continued progress in the critical area of nuclear non-proliferation. The Cox-Markey legislation would forbid the United States from indemnifying the technology provided by an American contractor for civilian nuclear reactors in North Korea. The United States agreed to help build these reactors in exchange for North Korea's freezing of its nuclear-related activities at two sites. In the interim, these reactors are necessary to provide sufficient energy for parts of North Korea. If this amendment were to pass, the contractor will be forced to pull out of the project, leaving the U.S. unable to fulfill its part of the agreement. North Korea would then lack any reason for not resuming work at its nuclear sites. We have a good agreement with North Korea. It effectively limits the nuclear threat posed by that country, and it does so in an intelligent way. The agreement is good for the U.S., and it commits us to building several reactors, which we will finance in concert with two of our Pacific allies, Japan and South Korea. This is a small price to pay for the dangers we can reduce in North Korea. If the Cox-Markey amendment passes, we will undermine the agreement, which will have two consequences. First, it will provoke North Korea to continue its production of nuclear warheads. Second, it will cause the U.S. to renege on its share of the duty, making us look unreliable to our allies. For these two reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my support for the Sanchez- Morella-Lowey amendment. This amendment, strongly supported by the Department of Defense, would provide fairness to female service members of the military assigned to duty overseas. Mr. Chairman, the facts of this amendment are simple. First, no Federal funds would be used to perform these service. Individuals who decide to have these procedures would use their own money. Second, health care professionals who object to performing abortions as a matter of conscience or moral principle would not be required to do so. Finally, the amendment simply repeals the statutory prohibition on abortions in overseas military hospitals. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Dreier-Skelton- Gilman-Tauscher amendment to the defense authorization bill. Current U.S. export controls on supercomputers are Cold War leftovers that are irrelevant to today's global marketplace. Namely, they do not account for the rapid development of widely available technology. On February 1, President Clinton proposed new controls to reflect modern technology. But that proposal will not take effect until August because of a lengthy 180-day congressional review process. The problem is that modern technology in August is not necessarily what modern technology was in February. Today we should limit the congressional review period to 30 days, which would be in line with our export controls on tanks and other military technologies. I submitted an amendment to that effect on Monday. I regret that the Committee on Rules ruled against my amendment, and for this 60-day review period. Congress simply does not need 2 months to review technology that is ubiquitous and is being exported by other nations. When we apply antiquated controls to a fast-paced, evolving market, we hurt American businesses with no added advantage to national security. While a 30-day review period is the right policy, I urge my colleagues to support this 60-day review period held in the Dreier- Skelton-Gilman-Tauscher amendment because it is better policy than the current law.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to express my support for the Enhancement of Authority of Military Departments to Lease Non-Excess Property that is found in Section 2812 of the Mark. The changes in this section will give military departments the needed leasing flexibility to ensure that the men and women on our military installations have ready access to important institutions, such as their credit unions, and the services they provide. By allowing these services and this use of the property to count as in-kind consideration for the lease, military departments may treat credit unions on military property much the same as credit unions on other Federal property and effectively charge them a nominal fee to lease land to build facilities to serve military personnel.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I have prepared remarks; and I am an original cosponsor of this bill, but I cannot let the comments of the previous speaker and other speakers go by. I think that it is absolutely a horror for the American people to be told by any Member of Congress that American women may have a bad day and decide to have a partial-birth abortion. That is certainly not the fact, and that is certainly demeaning to every woman in this country. How dare anyone suggest that this is anything but about a very tragic, personally debilitating scenario, when very late in a pregnancy a mother and a father are told that that baby will not survive outside the womb and that medical procedures may be necessary to save the life and the health of that mother. Let us talk about the facts, ladies and gentlemen. Let us not cloud this. And let us not demean American women by suggesting that because they are having a bad day, they are going to get rid of a very precious child. Let us ban late-term abortions. There is no one here that is pro- choice that is pro-abortion, but there are people here unfortunately that will twist the facts for their own political gain. This is a shameful day for this House. It is a shameful day that we will not protect the health and the life of American women and that we will not honor the mothers of this country by acting as if they can actually take care of their own children.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, every dollar we spend on research and development, especially in high-technology, translates directly into growth for U.S. businesses and good, high-paying jobs for our working families. For the same reasons I fervently support the Networking and Information Technology R&D Act, I rise in opposition to this Amendment that would shift R&D resources away from the Department of Energy and to the National Science Foundation. As the ranking Member of the new Panel to oversee the Department of Energy's reorganization and as a Member with 2 National Laboratories in my district, I am intimately familiar with the Department of Energy's record on R&D. And it is superb. The Energy Department has been at the forefront of civilian science and computing for generations. They specialize in developing computing applications in areas ranging from material science to high-energy physics, and from atomic structure to biology. For example, as early as the 1970's, the Energy Department developed the first interactive access to supercomputers via long-distance networks. And in the 1980's, the Department laid the groundwork for what became the National Science Foundation's supercomputer centers. Over the years, Department scientists have won 70 Nobel prizes, discovered new heavy elements, advanced medical breakthroughs in breast cancer treatment and more. Moreover, if this amendment becomes law, it will force the closure of the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory--the most powerful unclassified computer center available for civilian research in the nation. It also will force the Department to end its joint research efforts with major U.S. computer and telecommunications firms including IMB and Quest Communications. The National Science Foundation is also a worthy organization. But the two agencies have different missions, different personnel and different strengths. By dividing our R&D dollars between the two, we are creating the best environment for scientific and high-technology breakthroughs that will continue to fuel our economy and create jobs for our working families. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and pass the overall bill.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, as a supporter of eliminating the marriage penalty tax, I am very disappointed in the way the Republican leadership has brought this issue to the floor today. It is like Ronald Reagan said over a decade ago, here they go again. Only this Republican leadership can take a consensus issue, such as the marriage penalty tax cut, and politicize it to the point of failure. The marriage penalty, as my colleague from California said, is illogical and unfair; but it is wrong to fix it in an illogical and unfair way. It is irresponsible for the Republican leadership to bring this kind of tax cut measure to the floor outside of the context of the entire budget. If we are to be fiscally responsible and maintain our balanced budget and the era of surpluses, we cannot make these kinds of decisions in a vacuum. Mr. Speaker, American working families need tax relief. A couple on their wedding day should not be handed a tax bill from the Federal Government, and in my district in the East Bay Area of San Francisco more than 65,000 working families pay a marriage penalty. This is the money they should be spending on educating their children, providing health care for their families, or saving for their retirement. Bringing this bill to this floor in this way is wrong. I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic alternative and vote no on this bill.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 173.