Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, with the passing of Edward Teller on Tuesday, the United States has lost one of our foremost physicists and a lifelong advocate for education. Through his leadership and vision, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in my district designed the nuclear weapons that have deterred world wars and the infrastructure that ensures the continuing safety, security, and reliability of our Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile without live testing.

His efforts were instrumental in creating the Livermore site at what was then the University of California Radiation Laboratory in 1952.

Teller served as the Laboratory's second director from 1958 to 1960, a time when it was well along in development of the U.S. Navy's Polaris missile warhead. Teller advanced Polaris, the Laboratory's first military design project. Polaris was validated in a test in 1958, a few months before nuclear testing was halted for a time by a voluntary moratorium.

The moratorium was one of Teller's greatest challenges. Faced with keeping the Laboratory viable without testing, plans were laid for a program exploring the peaceful uses of nuclear explosives called Project Plowshare.

In addition to his contributions to physics, Teller was a passionate educator and strongly believed that America needed more intensive scientific education to develop future generations of scientists and engineers.

Less than two months ago, Edward Teller was recognized for his contributions to science with the prestigious Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Nation's highest honor.

As I work with the national laboratories on the cutting edge programs they have developed in multiple areas, I am constantly reminded of Edward Teller's legacy. I am saddened by this loss but know that he has made lasting and important contributions to the security of the United States. For that, we are all grateful.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to ask my colleagues to support a simple amendment. Currently only consumers who can prove that they already have been victims of identity theft can ask the credit industry to confirm the identity of a person before issuing new credit accounts under the consumer's name. My amendment would simply allow any consumer the option to require the credit industry to use the reasonable policies and procedures identification standards established in the fraud alert provision. This amendment would give all consumers, students, military, the elderly and families, a meaningful way to protect their own personal credit records.

Proponents of this bill claim that the fraud alert provision creates powerful consumer protection tools to prevent identity thieves from opening accounts in their names. They fail to mention that the tools are available only after one becomes a victim. Talk about closing the barn door after the horse is out.

The credit industry argues that the public needs education to learn how to protect their data. While there are some precautions individuals can take, individual consumers have little or no means to protect themselves from the fastest-growing type of identification theft, theft from poorly protected databases. Since 1990, 33 million Americans, or one in six adults, have been victims of identity theft. This year businesses will lose $4.2 billion to this crime, losses that will ultimately be passed on to other customers. Earlier this year, the major credit card companies confirmed that a hacker broke into their systems and accessed 8 million credit card records. My amendment would provide all consumers an option to proactively protect their personal information against fraudulent use by identity thieves, organized crime and terrorist organizations.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the distinguished ranking member from Massachusetts to work with me and the members of the committee during conference to implement the spirit of my amendment in the final report.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Offered By: Mrs. Tauscher

Amendment No. 9: Page 69, after line 5, insert the

following new section (and conform the table of contents

accordingly):

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my strong opposition to H.R. 2210, the School Readiness Act of 2003. Nationwide, Head Start programs are facing serious budget and service cutbacks in the comprehensive health, nutrition, social and educational services they offer. Most Head Start programs only have enough funds to operate a half-day schedule while most parents need full day care to accommodate their work schedules. Only three out of every five children eligible for services find a slot in a Head Start classroom. Only 62,000 infants and toddlers--just 3 percent of those eligible--are served in Early Head Start. Many centers will face possible closure within the next 5 years if President Bush's proposal is enacted.

Last year, federal funding for Head Start was almost cut by 10 percent. If that funding cut had been enacted, the Napa Solano Head Start Program, which serves children in some of the areas I represent, would have been forced to eliminate 100 slots for kids; would have had to close five classrooms; and would have had to fire 15 teachers. The Napa Solano Head Start program serves over a thousand infants, toddlers, and pre-school children in my district. These children come from families who live in poverty--where the parents' incomes are around $18 thousand a year for a family of four. Without Head Start, these families would have almost no options.

Incredibly, Head Start is only receiving a paltry 1.6 percent increase in funding for 2004--an amount that barely covers inflation. Head Start administrators say they will be forced to make cuts. But Mr. Chairman, the cuts are not the biggest concern. The crux of this debate is that the White House and Republicans in Congress are trying to dismantle Head Start as we know it. The Republican bill being debated today would change Head Start from a program that provides federal grants directly to local community organizations into a state- controlled program.

I've always believed that education needs to be a national obsession and a local possession, and I am very concerned that taking money away from communities to run Head Start programs tailored to their needs would devastate children in our communities. States will be forced to use money for administrative expenses instead of spending it all on early education, healthcare, and nutrition services for our children. This plan may also allow states to use Head Start dollars for non-Head Start programs because the block grant money could be funneled to other programs to reduce state budget deficits. A state only needs an existing program providing pre-kindergarten in order to qualify for funds. Unfortunately, nothing in this bill requires the state to have a good pre-K program. There are no measures dictating quality, class size, or components of curriculum. Any program would suffice. Thus, a state with an untested, unproven program that is less rigorous and comprehensive than the Head Start program would still qualify for funds.

According to the National Head Start Association, only four states have services as comprehensive as Head Start, and none have been demonstrated to be of equal or better effectiveness. And, because of conditions put on states to receive Federal funds, many simply would not qualify. The net effect of this, Mr. Chairman, is that there will be fewer dollars to administer programs at the local level and our kids will be the ones who suffer. But that's not the only problem with this bill. It essentially guts performance standards, which will ultimately lead to dismantling Head Start. Current law requires the Department of Health and Human Services to thoroughly review all Head

Start grantees every 3 years. Head Start experts supervise and conduct the reviews. Under H.R. 2210, accountability and oversight will disappear because the reviews will be contracted out and there will be no initial evaluation of the quality of their state plan before funds are released. By determining priorities and making decisions at the state level instead of at the local level, the input of community leaders and parents would be eliminated.

I do support the underlying bill's provision requiring that 50 percent of Head Start teachers nationwide have a bachelor's degree by 2008, and that by 2005, all new teachers have at least an associate's degree. This would provide our children with better trained teachers and would provide our teachers with a way to earn a higher salary. Unfortunately, this bill provides no funding for teacher education or salaries. It actually cuts the amount of funds that may be reserved for teacher training and technical assistance to less than 2 percent. Head Start teacher salaries cannot compete with the benefit packages offered by county offices of education and school districts; therefore we train teachers and then lose them to the higher paying entities after they obtain their degrees. This bill does not provide enough money for teacher training and salaries and is thus another unfunded mandate.

Head Start is not just a literacy program or just a pre-kindergarten program. It is an anti-poverty program that seeks to build strong families and strong communities. Strengthening the family is the only way we can effect long-term, positive change in a child's life.

My colleague from California, George Miller, has offered a substitute bill that will keep Head Start in place as we know it. The Miller substitute will strengthen school readiness, improve program quality, and expand access so more eligible kids are served--and provide enough funds to do so all while maintaining local control. The Democratic substitute includes assistance for children of migrant and seasonal farm workers, creates a new quality standard to develop school readiness, and focuses on pre-literacy, language and pre-math skills. While our children's performance standards in some content areas do need to be improved, dismantling the entire Head Start program, as the majority's proposal would do, is a huge leap backwards in the progress we've made for children in communities across the country.

I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic substitute and to preserve this great program.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend Mr. Hobson and Ranking Member Visclosky for offering a strong bill that ensures that the United States continues to have a robust nuclear deterrent and the infrastructure to support it.

As the former ranking member of the Armed Services panel to oversee the National Nuclear Security Administration, I am especially pleased that the committee report highlights the need for the NNSA to focus on its primary mission of maintaining the viability of the existing stockpile.

The committee's cuts in funding for new nuclear weapons and for the robust nuclear earth penetrator are vital steps toward restoring U.S. leadership in fighting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Indeed, not only does the military not have any requirements for these weapons, but developing them would send a strong signal to other countries that the pursuit of nuclear weapons is legitimate and necessary.

At a time when we are facing a changing security environment it would seem prudent to strengthen the core missions of the nuclear establishment such as our science based stockpile stewardship rather than embark on potentially dangerous new missions that would have a destabilizing effect.

In this regard, I am pleased to see full support for the National Ignition Facility, a key Stockpile Stewardship Program facility which is being build in my district.

Recently NIF brought the first four of its 192 beams online and has demonstrated full power and full performance on those beams. Those four beams now constitute the most powerful laser in the world.

NIF will begin to do experiments to provide data to the Stockpile Stewardship Program this year--while it continues to commission additional laser beams on the path to full facility operation in

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time.

Mr Speaker, I would like to offer my strong support for the motion to instruct which sends an important message that it is the will of the House to maintain the ban on development of low-yield nuclear weapons, and I commend the chairman of the full committee for his initiative to work with us on this.

Nuclear weapons will remain a crucial part of America's arsenal for the foreseeable future. They provide a hedge against potentially hostile nuclear powers and underpin security commitments to our allies. Today, however, the United States is addressing the threat of weapons of mass destruction from North Korea, India, Pakistan, and a growing list of countries.

As we have seen in Afghanistan and in the global war on terrorism, when the United States leads with a purpose, the rest of the world will follow. And just as the world follows our lead on tackling common enemies, it also reacts when we take provocative and destabilizing action. I believe strongly that until our war fighters have a military requirement for a new nuclear weapon or have exhausted conventional alternatives, Congress should maintain its ban on the development of such weapons.

Preventing the development of new nuclear weapons would not affect the RNEP study with focuses on existing warheads. It would not prevent any of the ideas that are currently being explored regarding missile systems. In addition to having no military requirement for them, new nuclear weapons are not the answer to threats being used to justify them. Nuclear weapons of any yield have a limited penetration ability and will never surgically destroy hardened targets. They offer no guarantee of destroying chemical and biological agents without releasing them into the atmosphere. Detonated in an urban area, even a 1-kiloton nuclear bomb would kill tens of thousands of civilians and hinder friendly troops.

Preserving the ban on new nuclear weapons is a small step that would also help restore the belief that the United States intends to fight the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. I hope my colleagues would support this motion to recommit.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering with the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) would provide a small, but vital, fix to the cumbersome process that governs the export of commercial communication satellites to our closest allies.

The amendment is identical to language that Senator Enzi offered and that was passed as part of the Senate foreign relations bill.

Under current law, satellite sellers must obtain a license from the State Department just to talk to a prospective buyer of a product. When a foreign buyer calls and asks for basic information, the company cannot immediately answer any questions. The current process means American companies have to wait for weeks or months to call back potential customers. This is undermining an industry we used to dominate at a time when our economy is in a major slump.

As the COMSAT market continues to shrink, we want to ensure that U.S. companies are left standing. This amendment levels the playing field between the U.S. satellite industry and its foreign competitors.

Under exception provided by our amendment, exporters of commercial communications satellites would be allowed to provide marketing information only to member countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and Japan, Australia and New Zealand. It would not affect any of the licensing requirements for countries like China and would keep in place all of the national security statutes put in place by Congress.

The amendment also improves the U.S. export control system. It enables the State Department to focus its resources on the transfer of truly sensitive data and allows U.S. companies to communicate with our allies internationally and friends in a timely and cost-effective manner about basic marketing information.

Our national security is closely linked to our technological leadership which guarantees the military advantage we have today, but our national security is being undermined by a sick industry that is falling behind its competition because of onerous bureaucracies that are doing nothing to protect our national security.

I urge my colleagues to support the Tauscher-Bereuter amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the coauthor of this amendment.

(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to simply remind my colleagues that, first and foremost, this is marketing information that is declassified. Second, this is information that would only be allowed to be transmitted to NATO allies, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand. I think it is very important that we keep the controls that we have in place for any kind of technology transfer for places like China, Russia, and others, but this is for our own allies.

While we have watched this business that we dominated at one time leave our shores and go to foreign competitors, I think it is very important that we keep our strict controls, that we keep the State Department involved in the licensing, but in these declassified marketing materials that everyone agrees are basically innocent, that we should allow them to be disseminated so that we can keep the small part of the business that we have left.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, the funding level in the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill is woefully insufficient. It fails to meet the needs of school, and our children will end up paying the price. While the majority has talked again

and again about reforming and improving education, they have not provided the funds to do so.

This bill underfunds Impact Aid for school districts that are serving our military families in this country by $583 million that are required by the No Child Left Behind Act. It is irresponsible to take credit for passing the No Child Left Behind Act, but then refuse to provide the money to fund the programs, especially to the level that Congress and the President committed to just 2 years ago.

There are thousands of men and women from my district at Travis Air Force Base who deserve to have better schools for their children while they are fighting in Operation Iraqi Freedom. They deserve a top-notch education for their kids.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule for the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill and demand that we fully fund Impact Aid.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and to defeat the previous question. This will allow us to debate a much more realistic and fiscally responsible Medicare bill.

It is clear that the status quo is not working to make prescription drugs affordable for seniors. It is also clear that our country's economic situation does not give Congress a lot of options for solving this growing problem. Under the Dooley-Tauscher plan, seniors do not have to pay a premium, and the generous low-income benefit far exceeds the one offered by the majority. For seniors whose income is 150 percent of the Federal poverty level, roughly equal to $13,400, they will only have a 10 percent cost share.

Furthermore, any prescription drug plan needs to be part of Medicare, which seniors like and trust. Our plan is managed by Medicare. The benefit is integrated into Medicare part B, and every beneficiary gets a guaranteed benefit at no additional cost. By leveraging the buying power of all seniors, our plan allows every single person on Medicare to benefit from immediate drug savings regardless of how many prescriptions they are filling a month.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, our seniors need to be protected from catastrophic drug costs. Seniors who have high drug costs will be able to access the full benefit sooner because our plan focuses on the total cost of the drug, not discounted price paid out of pocket. Our plan has an extra safety net for those who really need it, people with total drug costs of $4,000 a year.

Under our bill, companies that currently provide prescription drug coverage to their retirees will have the incentive to continue doing so because the Federal Government will assume the risk of drug coverage once beneficiaries reach their deductible.

We need to be smart and realistic about how we can provide every American senior with prescription drug coverage. Given the current economic situation, our plan is the one that provides this coverage and is fiscally achievable. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and support the Dooley-Tauscher substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule for the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004. I commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), who are doing valuable work by looking into the intelligence surrounding Operation Iraqi Freedom.

By necessity and design, their work is classified. I feel strongly that their work must continue, but that this issue is beyond the scope of a single committee and is of such importance to our democracy that responsible public hearings by a select committee of users of intelligence are necessary. Members of relevant committees such as the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on International Relations, who use intelligence to make policy decisions every day, provide valuable perspective that should be part of a broader review.

As a member of the Committee on Armed Services, I am a user of intelligence, and the information I receive shapes the decisions I make for many men and women in uniform every day. Members of Congress and military planners need to have confidence that intelligence is objective and provides a sound basis for policy decisions.

No decision is more grave than sending American fighting men and women into harm's way. We have a duty to be certain that public policy that we base these decisions on is credible and real. With American and British soldiers continuing to be killed at an alarming rate in Iraq, we have to be sure that our intelligence is providing a realistic view of the threats they have.

Having open hearings by a select committee of policymakers who are customers of intelligence would not only allow Congress to reclaim its vital oversight role, but help convince the American people that their elected officials and President have the right tools to make the right decisions to protect them.

Mr. Speaker, this is not about the purview of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. I deeply respect the work that the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence does, but with all due respect, as a customer of that intelligence, the classified work that the committee does needs to remain classified, but after that work is declassified and moves to the National Security Agency, to the Pentagon, to the military planners, to the differing alphabet soups of agencies, who then take that classified work and begin to shape public policy with it, once that work becomes declassified and is starting to be moved into the public policy realm, I and others in relevant committees, like the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on International Relations, need to understand what exactly is being done to that intelligence to either promote it or shape it to perhaps fit a preconceived decision by people in the administration or in other parts of the policy-making chain.

I want to know if the intelligence work that is being done so ably by our intelligence people and the analysis done by them has been shaped in any way that would change my mind when I make these decisions. That is why I think we need a select committee. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule, but I support the work of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Vic Sood, General Manager of the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA), as he prepares to retire after 32 years of service in public transportation. For his unyielding commitment and dedication to running what has become one of the most effectively operated transit agencies in the entire Bay Area region, I would like to thank my good friend Vic Sood. The skillful craftsmanship of his work will endure far into the future.

Before moving to California, Vic Sood made many contributions to the public in the state of Washington. He was responsible for getting transit legislation passed into law in 1974 and 1975, which allowed for the formation and financing of new public transit systems, known as Public Transit Benefit Areas.

In September 1976, Vic Sood was appointed to serve as the first Executive Director of Community Transit after voters in Snohomish County, Washington, approved a sales tax increase to finance the Snohomish County Public Transit Benefit Area Corporation in June of that year. As a result of the legislation which he had labored to get passed, many new transit agencies were likewise created throughout the state of Washington.

While Executive Director of Snohomish County Community Transit, Vic Sood also served as President of the Washington State Transit Association in 1982 and 1983 and served as a regional representative to the American Public Transit Association's (APTA) Board of Directors in 1983 and 1984.

Subsequent to the formation of LAVTA in May 1986, as a Joint Powers Agency of the cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore and Alameda County for the provision of public transit in the area, Vic Sood was hired as the General Manager and started work in January 1986.

LAVTA began operating with only nine leased buses in 1986. Under Sood's management and with a quickly growing Livermore Valley, the system expanded to meet the area's needs and by 1990 the agency had

placed an order for 34 new buses. By 1996, LAVTA was serving one million passengers each year. In 2001, it was two million. LAVTA has grown to a fleet of 75 buses and 16 paratransit vehicles during Vic Sood's tenure.

Currently, Vic Sood serves as a member of APTA's Legislative Committee, Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) Task Force and the Small Operators Steering Committee. He is also a member of the Legislative Committee of the California Transit Association and a Board Member of RIDES for Bay Area Commuters, Inc., the San Francisco Bay Area Partnership Board and California Transit Insurance Pool.

It has been my great pleasure to have worked with Vic Sood over the past seven years on transit issues both local and regional in perspective. He has been a supportive colleague and a good friend. I wish him and his wife, Manu, good fortune in their future endeavors together.

Vic Sood has made a substantial and positive impact upon those communities for which he has worked during his remarkable career. He has been an invaluable servant to the public. His tireless efforts will not soon be forgotten by those who worked with him or for him. It is with honor that I commend Vic Sood for his service to the community and to the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority for over 17 years.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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.

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.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

So this is apples and oranges.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.