Ellen Tauscher

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act of 2003 with my colleague, Congressman Mark Kirk. This important bipartisan legislation mirrors legislation offered by Senators Biden and Lugar, and will reduce the risk of infectious diseases entering this country. As we have learned from the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, and the anthrax attacks, nature and terrorists do not stand still while the world finds ways to improve its preparedness against biological threats. Indeed, new diseases--no matter where they start--can spread to the United States in days or even hours. Many of them, including smallpox, SARS and the plague have lengthy incubation times, lasting two to twelve days. The flight time between any two cities, however, is under 36 hours. Any of the 140 million people who enter the United States by air each year can, unknowingly, carry these dangerous pathogens with them. SARS, for example, came to the world's attention in East Asia in March. Today, there are over eight thousand cases worldwide, with the highest number of cases in the United States occurring in my home state of California. Because it was not reported immediately and a strong international network was not in place to monitor and control it, SARS has become a worldwide epidemic. It has put a severe strain on hospitals and health care systems and caused financial chaos in dozens of countries. While Congress has been generous in funding measures to improve domestic biopreparedness, rapid detection of outbreaks requires significant improvements in international disease surveillance. While developing nations are most likely to experience rapid disease outbreak, they don't have the trained personnel, the laboratory equipment or the public health infrastructure to deal with epidemics-- much less warn the rest of the world. Our bill would help train public health professionals in developing countries to use electronic syndrome surveillance systems and traditional epidemiology methods to better detect, diagnose and contain infectious disease outbreaks. Our bill would also help developing countries purchase public health laboratory equipment for health surveillance and diagnosis as well as communications technology to transmit information about infectious diseases. This legislation would also develop and enhance existing regional health networks and establish lab-to-lab cooperative relationships between the United States and public health laboratories and foreign counterparts. It would also strengthen the reporting capabilities of the World Health Organization, whose decision to issue a global alert in March allowed health officials around the world to take appropriate measures to control the spread of SARS. All these provisions strengthen a global surveillance network which will detect the unique symptoms of an epidemic before it spreads and allow earlier diagnosis and better containment measures. I call on my colleagues to support this important bill and help us close the huge gaps in our defense against emerging diseases.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Hoyer- Greenwood substitute. As a pro-choice, pro-child Member of Congress and mother, I believe that abortions should be safe, legal and rare. For more than a quarter of a century, the Supreme Court has drawn a very clear line on this issue. As Americans and lawmakers, we are bound by the Constitution and we must realize that a ban on a specific late-term procedure that fails to include the life-and-health-of-the-mother standard the Supreme Court established in Roe and upheld in both Casey and Webster will be overturned by the Supreme Court. What is wrong with the underlying bill? First, it does not take into consideration the health of the mother. Second, it bans an overly broad class of medical procedures that are also useful during pre-viability stages. The Hoyer-Greenwood substitute gives Congress an opportunity to do the right thing. This bipartisan bill would prohibit all late-term abortions, but it makes the constitutionally required exception for when it would be necessary to save the mother's life or avert serious health consequences. Congress should leave a decision as deeply personal as whether to have an abortion to a woman, her family, her doctor and her God. My colleagues, this vote is a test. Are we interested in banning late-term abortions? Or are we just wasting everybody's time and beating our chests just to pass something that we know will be overturned by the Supreme Court? Let us do the right thing. Let us ban these procedures in late term. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Hoyer-Greenwood substitute.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule. This bill entirely re-writes two of the cornerstones of environmental policy--the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Yet we will debate this for only 10 minutes. This rule attempts to conceal an egregious overreach by the Majority by labeling it as a typographical error. Having been caught with their hands in the cookie jar, the Majority now seeks to establish political cover, prohibit meaningful debate and avoid going on the record with a recorded vote against the environment. This administration's attempt to enact sweeping environmental exemptions under the guise of ``military readiness'' is a disgrace. I am also outraged that the rule has not allowed Mr. Spratt's amendment on nuclear nonproliferation. The threat level has been increased to orange, the administration is on the lookout for terrorists and rogue nations with weapons of mass destruction, yet the Majority refuses to allow debate on the most meaningful way to prevent terrorists from getting nuclear weapons in the first place--our long-standing, proven nonproliferation programs. Mr. Speaker, this is an outrage. I urge my colleagues to vote for the very principles this body was founded upon and vote against this egregious rule.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Unfortunately, my colleague from New Mexico, in an attempt to advance her ``more nukes is better than any nukes at all'' argument, has decided to degrade our existing nuclear weapons deterrent and kind of posit that for some reason there are people out there that actually do not believe that we have the most reliable, credible, and safe nuclear deterrent in the world. The truth is we do. We know we do, and we do not need new nuclear weapons to do what we know conventional weapons can do, and we certainly do not need them in a tactical battlefield environment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who is the cosponsor of the bill.

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

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

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, can I ask how much time I have.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the cosponsor of the bill.

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

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, if it is my amendment, why would the other side have the right to close?

Mrs. TAUSCHER. I think I do. It is my amendment, I think, Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the full committee ranking member.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. So this is apples and oranges.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I would. But it was about the low-yield weapons, not about the RNEP.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment that addresses a dangerous nuclear policy provision in the defense bill. This amendment cuts $21 million for the robust nuclear Earth penetrator, known as the RNEP, and for new nuclear weapons and redirects that money toward improving our conventional capability to defeat hard and deeply buried targets. As we do this debate today, our military does not have a requirement for nuclear bunker busters. They do, however, need funds for several programs the Pentagon is pursuing to improve our ability to get at hardened targets with conventional weapons. My amendment would provide additional funding to these critical conventional initiatives without taking the United States down a dangerous road that seeks to find new uses for nuclear weapons and crosses the line from strategic deterrent to offensive use. There are several reasons not to develop an RNEP. Here are just five: First, it will produce massive collateral damage; second, even the most powerful nuclear weapons cannot destroy bunkers at a certain depth; third, if a bunker is filled with chemical and biological agents, it is only common sense to keep them underground rather than blow them up and spread them all over the place in a mushroom cloud; fourth, an RNEP will cause massive casualties. Detonated in an urban area, it would kill tens of thousands of civilians. Last, developing nuclear bunker busters would undermine decades of work by the United States to prevent nonnuclear states from getting nuclear weapons and encourage nuclear states to reduce their stockpiles. Until we have exhausted all conventional means to defeat hardened targets and the military service produces a current requirement for an RNEP, it would be irresponsible for Congress to jump the gun and promote new uses for nuclear weapons. Let us learn from history. Nearly half a century ago, President Eisenhower rejected the Council of Advisers who wanted a new variety of nuclear weapons that they said would allow the United States to fight a winnable nuclear war. Eisenhower responded: ``You can't have that kind of war. There just aren't enough bulldozers to scrape the bodies off the streets.'' As we have seen in Afghanistan and Iraq, conventional weapons can do the job. There is no scientific, military, or strategic reason to go nuclear at this time and every reason not to. I urge my colleagues to support the Tauscher amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time, and I rise to express my support for the Sanchez amendment. This amendment would provide equal access to women in the military who are serving overseas. Currently, women who have volunteered to serve our country and female military dependents are denied their legally guaranteed right to choose simply because they are stationed overseas. All military women, including those deployed overseas, should be able to depend on their base hospitals for all of their health care needs. A repeal of the current ban on personally funded abortions would allow women access to the same range and quality of reproductive health care available in the United States. Most importantly, the Sanchez amendment would allow our servicewomen privacy in making this important personal decision. Under current law, military women must either go off base or must ask their commander for time off to travel back to the United States. Madam Chairman, I hope we can support this amendment and ensure that American women stationed overseas are afforded the same basic rights as women at home. I urge my colleagues to support this critical amendment.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we know that the scientific and military community have said consistently that there are three things needed to defeat deeply hardened and buried targets. They are intelligence, precision targeting and Special Operations forces. They never said the word ``nuclear.'' There is no need for us to rush to judgment. There certainly is no reason for us to provide money for something that the military has not asked for. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Tauscher amendment, to make sure we move the money from nuclear weapons to conventional weapons so we can defeat these targets. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Americans who are currently serving our country, and those who have served so gallantly in the past. Particularly during this time of war, America's heroes of the past, as well as the present, must be honored and remembered. As such, I join Congressman Hoyer and Congressman Skelton to recognize today as National Former Prisoner of War Recognition Day. These soldiers, captured while fighting for freedom and the future of America, faced imprisonment with their fates unknown. These brave men and women looked their enemy in the face, persevered with honor, courage, and faith in their country--and survived. Many, however, were not so fortunate. The ordeal of being a prisoner of war does not end once rescued from behind enemy lines. The physical, emotional, and spiritual toll of internment can take years, even a lifetime, to rebuild and overcome. As former prisoners of war, you have gone beyond the call of your duty. You put your life, your blood, your soul on the line. This is a sacrifice most of us will never be able to comprehend. That burden, that sacrifice, that unfettered dedication to our country will forever make you national heroes. We owe an inexpressible debt of gratitude to you, our former POWs, and to your families, whose prayers for a safe return were answered. Today we honor you for your bravery, strength, and sacrifice. And tomorrow we will not forget.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

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

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to register my strong support for ensuring that the supplemental appropriations legislation before us gives the President the critical ability to defend the United States against the threat of weapons of mass destruction. Two of the most effective ways to do that are to give the President the authority to use the Department of Defense funds to dismantle nuclear and chemical weapons facilities around the world, and to support efforts by the Department of Energy to prevent smuggling of weapons of mass destruction throughout the Middle East and central Asia. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), and I have an amendment that would do just that. It provides the President with the authority that he has requested from Congress to expand the use of cooperative threat-reduction funds for projects and activities in countries outside the former Soviet Union. My amendment also adds $55 million for Department of Energy nonproliferation programs; of that, $20 million for the Second Line of Defense Program to install radiation detection equipment at key transit points outside the former Soviet Union, and $35 million for materials protection control and accounting activities in regions of concern, including Iraq, should any dangerous agents be discovered there. Both these provisions were contained in the Senate version of the supplemental, approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee just this past Tuesday. Additionally, CTR authority outside the former Soviet Union is urgently needed for the Defense Department to apply its unique knowledge and capabilities in places like Iraq if and when weapons of mass destruction are discovered. The additional funds for the Department of Energy would allow for some of the same capability while also enhancing domestic security through radiation detection at transit points overseas. Two years ago, former Senator Howard Baker and White House counsel Lloyd Cutler concluded, ``The most urgent unmet national security threat to the United States is the danger that weapons of mass destruction or weapons-usable material in Russia could be stolen and sold to terrorists or hostile nations and used against American troops abroad or citizens at home.'' Today, it could not be any clearer that our homeland is at risk and that our troops are getting ever closer to potential weapons of mass destruction. Congress has the duty to let the President use DOD and DOE nonproliferation programs to protect our homeland and our troops. I understand that my amendment is subject to a point of order and I will withdraw it; but I deeply urge my colleagues to support this provision in conference, and I urge my colleagues who are conferees to please re-insert this language and support it in the conference. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, we all wanted diplomacy to find a peaceful solution, and now we all want our troops home as quickly and safely as possible. The enemy should understand that it can take no comfort in the disagreement we have had with President Bush on the wisdom of a unilateral war in Iraq. Once our President sends our men and women into harm's way, we will do everything possible to support our troops abroad and their families here at home. I share the sadness and concern for our fighting men and women and the people of Iraq. I join my colleagues and Californians in wanting to ensure our troops are safe, innocent civilians casualties are avoided, Saddam is disarmed, and the world community is engaged in rebuilding a democratic Iraq. When I was in the Persian Gulf earlier this year, I saw many of the men and women who will win this war for America. They are young, they are smart, and they are ready. To the men and women of the Armed Forces, especially those from Travis Air Force Base and Reserve and National Guard units from throughout California and the Bay area, you have the unwavering support of this Congress and the American people. To the families of these brave men and women, let me tell you that your sacrifice is tremendous, and we are praying for your loved ones' safe return. Now the only exit strategy that remains is victory. I am confident that day will come soon. God bless our troops and God bless America.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. This legislation is not perfect, but we must streamline the current bureaucracy if we are going to protect the American people. I have been working for more than a year to create a Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security. I would like to applaud the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) for his prescient knowledge about this issue and for taking the Hart-Rudman report 6 months before September 11 and crafting good legislation that we could follow. This legislation today accomplishes that by bringing together the homeland security components of our government, including the national laboratories, Coast Guard, Border Patrol, and first responders. I am glad that this bill gives the TSA flexibility to allow larger airports like Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose and Sacramento more time to configure their explosive detection systems. This will save commuters from long lines and ensure that limited resources are being spent on the best equipment available. I also support the extension of war risk insurance for the aviation industry that is included in this bill. To those that claim that this bill will only create a bigger government, I say this is not about making more bureaucracy, this is about making the bureaucracy work better. To those that think it is far from perfect, I say, I agree. I am concerned that this bill does not create a center to analyze intelligence inside the new agency. And I am deeply concerned that this bill could allow the President to weaken the labor protections of civil service employees. But this bill is just a starting point, and I am committed to work to fix these issues. We must take this important step toward coordinating the dozens of government agencies responsible for fighting terrorism. Just as we must transform our military to be lighter, faster and more lethal at the time of asymmetrical threats, we must transform this Federal bureaucracy to be more responsive to threats to the homeland. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I urge this Congress to continue to work to cure this bill.