Ellen Tauscher

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. If the gentlewoman would yield?

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished chairwoman of the Foreign Ops appropriations bill about the need for increased funding for the United States contribution to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization called CTBTO. I had planned to offer an amendment to fund the CTBTO at least to the administration's request of $18 million for fiscal year 2008; but I would just like to make a few points for the record. As you know, the administration's fiscal year 2008 budget request calls for $18 million for the U.S. contribution to the CTBTO. Unfortunately, the Foreign Operations appropriations bill would shift $8 million of the administration's already inadequate request to another account, leaving only $10 million for U.S. funding for CTBTO test ban monitoring. The administration's request already falls well short of what is necessary to make up for past funding shortfalls that threaten to slow or stop the construction and operation of the test ban treaty organization's international monitoring system. In 2002, the Bush administration unilaterally decided not to support the U.S. portion, approximately $800,000 per year, of the on-site inspection component of the CTBTO verification activities. The administration, which does not support ratification and entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, argues that because the on- site inspection will only be available upon the entry into force of the treaty, the United States should not contribute. For fiscal year 2006, the Bush administration requested and Congress approved only $14.4 million for the CTBTO, which was $7 million short of the $22 million assessed by the organization. The continuing resolution covering most fiscal year 2007 spending set U.S. funding for the CTBTO at the fiscal year 2006 level, which was $9 million short of the United States $23.4 million assessment. Compounding the problem last month, the Bush administration unilaterally decided to obligate only $10 million of the $14.4 million appropriated by Congress. As a result, the U.S. is now in arrears to a total of $28.3 million. We are the single largest contributor to CTBTO, and our shortfalls will have a significant impact. The United States failure to pay its share will directly affect the CTBTO's ability to complete construction and certify for use the remaining stations in the international monitoring system, including those in more remote and strategic regions such as Turkmenistan, which lies just north of Iran. I am sure that the gentlewoman from New York (Chairman Lowey) shares my deep concern that the United States is underfunding the CTBTO as the danger of Iran's nuclear program grows as these fundings continue to deplete and we are not able to keep up with our obligations. Unless Congress increases funding for the U.S. contribution, these shortfalls that have accumulated over the last 7 years will continue to undermine the effort to complete a global monitoring network and conduct data analysis designed to detect and deter nuclear weapons test explosions.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairwoman's attention to this matter and her distinguished and significant leadership on this issue, and I look forward to working with her on this as the bill goes forward and in the conference. Once again, I appreciate having a colloquy. I think these are very important issues, especially since I hope we will get to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and our obligations are significant to make sure that we have this global monitoring effort.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

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

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has been discussed with the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, and I understand it is acceptable to the chairman and the ranking member. Before explaining my amendment, I want to congratulate Chairman Visclosky and Ranking Member Hobson for the bill before the House today. It is a strong testament to their talents. Among its achievements, the bill provides substantial increases for two broad national priorities that I have long championed, nuclear nonproliferation activities to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction and the materials and technologies that be can used to create such weapons, and scientific research on technologies to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy and on fossil fuels in general. The committee report takes a series of bold actions involving the Nation's nuclear weapons program, including directing the Department of Energy to reevaluate its plans for modernizing the nuclear weapons complex and demanding rapid consolidation of weapons-usable nuclear material. I want to commend the Energy and Water Subcommittee for their fine work. The bill also provides critical funding increases to a lesser known national priority, the National Ignition Campaign, which is being carried out at the Lawrence Livermore National Lab in my district. When the NIF is completed in fiscal year 2009, it will be a scientific tool unlike anything the world has ever seen. The National Ignition Facility will give U.S. scientists unprecedented insight into nuclear weapons phenomena, without nuclear explosions, and thus play a crucial role in the science-based stockpile stewardship program, which ensures the safety and reliability of our nuclear deterrent without nuclear testing. I commend the committee for its support of this critically important program. I do need to mention, however, that the report accompanying the bill includes a few instances where I believe the Appropriations Committee ventured beyond what was authorized in the weapons activities account by the House Armed Services Committee, where I serve as chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces. Directing the relocation of the long-planned Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility, commencing weapons disassembly activities at the Nevada Test site without a feasibility assessment, and initiating a major new construction project at the Idaho National Lab are all examples of actions that would be more appropriately dealt with by the authorizing committee. Separately, by cutting the funds for the mixed oxide fuel facility while demanding improved execution on the project, I believe it sets up an unfair task for the Energy Department. Having said that, Chairman Visclosky and Ranking Member Hobson, as well as our staff, have been very open to dialogue on these issues, and I truly, truly appreciate that. My amendment modifies the bill to address two actions recommended by the committee report. First, the amendment confirms that the pit facility will be located at the Savannah River site. The site was selected by a former record of decision that was issued in 2000, which was in turn based on the environmental impact statement completed in 1999. And second, the amendment directs that weapons dismantlement activities funded by the bill to be conducted at sites authorized to conduct such activity. I want to sincerely thank the chairman and ranking member for agreeing to accept this amendment. We are very grateful for the spirit of cooperation in which this amendment was achieved. I believe this cooperation is possible because at the end of the day we are in fundamental agreement on most of these issues. I trust that going forward we can continue discussing these projects, as well as others, and work together moving the country forward concerning the future of a nuclear weapons complex. I urge adoption of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I am very excited to continue to work with the chairman and the ranking member of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Committee. As I said earlier, our two staffs have worked very closely together to achieve what I think is some very good work on the National Nuclear Weapons Complex and other issues. I appreciate his accepting of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the Travis Regional Armed Forces Committee (TRAFC) as they celebrate their 10-year anniversary. The TRAFC is comprised of over 150 business and civic leaders who work together to support the men and women of Travis Air Force Base. The mission of the TRAFC is to ``maintain liaison with personnel at Travis Air Force Base, promote the mission of the base to the community, and enhance the importance of the facility as an instrument of national security.'' The TRAFC meets monthly on base to receive updates from the Commanders of the 60th AMW, 349 AMW Reserve, and 615 CRW and to recognize airmen from the various wings for going ``above and beyond'' in their service. In addition, the TRAFC hosts various events throughout the year to bring the communities surrounding the base and base personnel closer together. Events include the Military Recognition Night, NCO Night, and Commander's Night. The TRAFC also hosts a Contractor's Breakfast to educate businesses about bidding for contracts on base. Moreover, the TRAFC was instrumental in working with the local community to ensure the Base Realignment and Closure Panel understood the vital role of Travis AFB in securing the Nation. A great deal of the TRAFC's success is due in part to the leadership of the Fairfield-Suisun and Vacaville Chambers of Commerce and the Committee's own leadership. Past Presidents include Don Erickson, 1997- 1998, Bev Dorsett, 1998-1999, Al Lavezzo, 1999-2000, Len Augustine, 2000-2001, Gary Falati, 2001-2002, Dale Baumler, 2002-2003, Ben Huber, 2003-2004, Bud Ross, 2004-2005, Ray Schoch, 2005-2006, and Foy McNaughton, 2006-2007. Over the years I have had the opportunity to work with the TRAFC to support Travis AFB, both locally and in Washington, and have had the opportunity to support their nomination as the best base support organization in the Air Mobility Command. As the TRAFC celebrates their 10-year anniversary, I would like to thank current and past members of TRAFC for their dedication to the men and women of Travis AFB and recognize them for their support of the base and its vital mission.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize Johnny W. Welton, as he retires as the director of Contra Costa Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA), after 40 years of serving students in special education. Johnny W. Welton's career in special education encompasses 12 years as a classroom teacher, 3 years as a resource teacher, 8 years as a site and central office administrator and 16 years as the Director of the Contra Costa SELPA. In his role as director of SELPA, Welton established a Resource Parent Program, initiated Facilitation Skills training for staff IEP teams, and introduced Solutions Panel mediation training. Throughout his career, Johnny W. Welton has worked for equity, quality, reforms, and results in special education and conflict resolution. On many occasions during his illustrious career, Johnny W. Welton received national, State and local awards and recognition for his service to the children of Contra Costa County. Among these are: the first ``Peacemaker of the Year Award'' from the California Department of Education; the ``Outstanding Administrator of the Year Award'' presented by the Association of California School Administrators; a certificate of Appreciation awarded by Contra Costa Children and Adults with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder; and the first Alternative Dispute Resolution grant from the California Department of Education in 1993, and in each year to follow. Johnny W. Welton's outstanding service to special education and dispute resolution more than validates his awards. He assisted in the reorganization and establishment of the California Department of Education Procedural Safeguards Unit, Compliance Monitoring Unit; he built partnerships between Education and other local agencies serving children with special needs; and he chaired the state of California Alternative Dispute Resolution Steering Committee. As Johnny W. Welton retires, I would like to thank him for his dedication to the quality of education of the children of Contra Costa County, and his leadership in the field of special education as an exceptional educator and SELPA Director. I wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. I thank the chairman. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues are rushing to clap and pat themselves on the back, I just want to make very clear; this is not new, this is just more, and that is why we're happy to accept it. If you look at the report language on page 242, we make it very clear that our cooperative relationship with Israel is not only significant, but primary, and that our efforts to invest with them over these many years on programs like David's Sling and Arrow are significant and are fully funded at the President's request in this bill. What we don't have, however, which perhaps you could help with, is the cooperation of the Department of Defense to share critical information with Israel on THAAD. So I think, frankly, that this is of more of a ``me too'' than it is anything else. We are happy to accept it. But I think if you check the language on 242, you will see that this committee has done all that needs to be done, going along with the President to fully fund these programs, but we could use some help with the administration and the Pentagon to get them to work cooperatively on THAAD.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Chairman, first I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Missouri, the distinguished chairman of the committee, on his first mark of the national security defense bill. He is a fabulous member and a great leader. I appreciate all of the hard work that has been put into this bill. I also want to thank my ranking member, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), for his hard work and his willingness to work in a bipartisan way to achieve what I consider to be a very significant mark for the Strategic Forces Subcommittee; also, the members of the subcommittee and our fabulous staff. Madam Chairman, this bill is a bill that I have worked on with my colleagues to incorporate four priorities into the bill before the House. First, this bill aims to create a public discussion about nuclear weapons by establishing a congressionally appointed bipartisan commission designed to reevaluate U.S. strategic posture. This commission would provide valuable recommendations to Congress regarding the proper mix of conventional and nuclear weapons needed to meet new and emerging threats. Second, the bill slows the Department of Energy nuclear weapons initiatives. We limit reliable replacement warhead funds to design and cost study activities and eliminate funding for the proposed Consolidated Plutonium Center. Instead, we increase funding to strengthen the Stockpile Stewardship Program, as well as the weapons complex. Third, the bill funds ballistic missile defense systems that will protect the American people, our deployed troops, and allies against real threats while shifting resources away from longer term, high-risk efforts. It fully funds the Army missile defense budget request for the Patriot PAC-3 missile, including funding for the Patriot ``Pure Fleet'' initiative. It fully funds the Ground Based Missile Defense System to protect the United States against a potential threat from North Korea or Iran. It includes funding for Aegis BMD and fully funds THAAD development and deployment. Finally, we are boosting funding for space capabilities that deliver near-term benefits to the warfighter and improve space situational awareness and survivability. Madam Chair, this bill strikes a balance between near-term needs and long-term investment, and it creates the means to help bring our nuclear weapons policies into the 21st century. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 3 and 4 of House Resolution 403, and as the designee of the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, I request that during further consideration of H.R. 1585 in the Committee of the Whole, and following consideration of amendment 49, the following amendments be considered in the following order: amendment No. 30; amendment No. 11; amendment No. 31; amendment No. 41; amendment No. 15; amendment No. 42; amendment No. 43; en bloc No. 3. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to thank my colleagues very much for bringing this issue up, although I cannot support their amendment. I appreciate not only their frustration, but their energy that they bring to the debate because, frankly, as the Chair of the subcommittee, that is the reason we did cut $764 million from this program. For a long time I think many of us have been concerned that this has been an agency that has been obviated from all of the normal conventions of responsibility and testing regimen and accountability. I think what we see now is that we do have components of missile defense that are successful. Certainly PAC-3 is successful, certainly Aegis BMD is successful, and many of us have very high hopes for THAAD. The ground-based system has not had as successful testing as many would like. As frustrated as my colleagues may be, as severe a cut as they are proposing is too detrimental to our ability to do what we try to do in this bill, which is to deliver in the near term the kind of protections that we need to have for not only the American people here at home, but for our warfighters deployed down range. These medium and short-range missile threats are real. It is important that we keep this funding going so we can deliver on these good opportunities while we restructure the program and while we hold the Missile Defense Agency accountable for the first time. I have to reluctantly oppose this amendment.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Chairman, pursuant to section 3 and 4 of House Resolution 403, and as the designee of the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, I request that during further consideration of H.R. 1585 in the Committee of the Whole, and following consideration of amendment No. 43, the following amendments be considered in the following order: amendment No. 7, amendment No. 1. Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Franks of Arizona

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

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the chairman of the committee.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, specifically because of some of the language that my colleagues have been using. What I find to be absolutely amazing is my colleagues on this side of the aisle who, for the last 6 years, have operated under a theory that there's never been too much money for missile defense without any accountability and without any reasonable sense that they had to have tests and that they had to produce for the American people. So it's not surprising to me that my colleagues rise and try to add back the money, the 8 cents on the dollar that my subcommittee, in a bipartisan way, trimmed from this program, as we did what the Republican bill last year suggested, that we redirect the focus of missile defense to near-term capabilities for the warfighter, for the American people and for our allies. Now, the never-too-much money for MDA crowd will try to gin up all kinds of threats, and I will say it again. We here on this side of the aisle are not confused about the threats. We believe these are real threats, and that is why we have diligently restructured the MDA budget to deal with the near-term threats so that we can actually protect the warfighter, the American people and make sure that we have these capabilities now for current threats. So the idea that we are doing massive cuts and that this is irresponsible probably makes sense to people that think that there's no such thing as not enough money for MDA, but from my point of view and for my constituents, I believe they need accountability, they need a testing regime operated by somebody other than themselves, and we need to have the modest cuts in this budget and need to oppose this amendment. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

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

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

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Chairman, as I said earlier, I rise in opposition to this amendment because we, I believe, have cuts in this bill that not only preserve the ability to have robust investments in missile defense, but, for the first time, create accountability for the Missile Defense Agency to deliver in the near term the kinds of capabilities necessary to protect our warfighters in the near term for real threats they face today, the American people, for real threats they face today and our allies and access abroad. That is what we decided to do last year in the defense bill. That is our most important priority. These are minor cuts that redirect our agency to do what they never did under our colleagues when they were in the majority, which is to have operational testing that is real, that has countermeasures, that deals with the real kinds of circumstances that we would face if we were attacked. There is great doubt out there about the capabilities of this system because it has never been held to the rigor and the robust testing necessary to make it a credible deterrent. We believe these cuts are marginal cuts. We plus up many things in this bill to make sure that we deliver in the near term to the warfighter the capabilities they need, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I don't oppose the amendment.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Chairman, let's just be clear. There is nothing in the bill that says that MDA cannot put the system on operational alert using RDT&E funds. They are not prohibited from doing it. In fact, they have done it in the past. What section 222 does say that if you are going to operate it, you should use operating and maintenance funds. That's all it says. So we have no objection to the gentleman's amendment, because in fact there is nothing in the bill that prohibits the system from being flicked on, and there is nothing about what we say that is contrary to what the gentleman is asserting. However, we do believe that it is important that when you are operating a system, you should use operation and maintenance funds.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. I am happy to yield to the ranking member.