Lois Capps

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, there are many times when we come to this floor and engage in heated debate, and we've heard some heated debate on this bill. But my final amendment offers us the opportunity to come together and to do something extraordinarily important: to contain the escalating cost of higher education. I want to be clear: passing this amendment will not prevent the passing of the underlying bill. If it's adopted, my amendment will be incorporated into the bill, and the bill will be immediately voted upon. Regardless of how one feels about the bill, we should all agree on a major problem facing students and their families. I'm talking about the skyrocketing cost of higher education putting the American Dream way out of reach for far too many students. Mr. Speaker, my final amendment is very simple. It says that nothing in this bill should limit the Secretary's ability to reduce the cost of higher education for students. In 2007, Democrats, working with President Bush, lowered the interest rates on need-based student loans to 3.4 percent at no cost to taxpayers. This change is saving college graduates thousands of dollars in student loan payments. But unless we act soon, the interest rates on these loans will double this summer. That will cost more than 7 million student borrowers at colleges and universities across the country more than $2,800 in additional interest payments. Mr. Speaker, students cannot afford graduating from college with mortgage-size debt. Student loan debt now surpasses overall credit card debt. We can do something about this. We need our graduates to be developing the next clean energy source and discovering the cures for life-threatening diseases. We need them to fill vital jobs in our communities, such as nurses, teachers, firefighters, and police. We don't need them to leave school overwhelmed by student loan payments, and we don't want them avoiding higher education in the first place due to the threat of crushing debt. Instead, we should make sure they are prepared for good-paying jobs in the global marketplace, and we can do that by making college more affordable. But, incredibly, this bill limits the Education Secretary's ability to protect students and taxpayers from higher education costs. With more than $200 billion in aid distributed each year, the Secretary must have the tools to lower costs for students and their families and to protect our Nation's investment in education. We shouldn't be tying the Secretary's hands at a time when we must be utilizing every tool available to keep college costs down. In particular, we should not do this while students face a potential doubling of interest rates on their loans, which will happen this summer if Congress doesn't take action now. The cost of borrowing for a student loan is already too high. Let's not make the problem worse. Again, my amendment simply states that nothing in the bill shall limit the Secretary's ability to reduce the cost of higher education for students, something we can all agree upon. So I urge a vote to lower costs for students and hardworking American families, and I'm pleased to yield to my distinguished colleague from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mrs. CAPPS. Yes, I am opposed.

Mrs. CAPPS. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of American Heart Month. February, you know, is not just about Valentine's Day, but it's also a month designated to raise awareness of heart disease, especially its impact and effects on women. Heart disease is the number one cause of death for women. And most Americans, including over 90 percent of primary care physicians, are not even aware that heart disease kills more women each year than men. We have lost far too many of our loved ones to heart disease. I dare say each of us knows someone, a dear friend or a family member, affected by it. And that's why I reintroduced H.R. 3526, the Heart for Women Act, to increase awareness of and access to care for those impacted by heart disease. I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and join me in the battle against heart disease.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. I would just comment to remark that the very project that my colleague from Washington, my friend, described is the project that the local constituents rejected by 70 percent, the project that was mentioned. We are interested, in California, in ending drilling, not just stopping leasing. Mr. Chairman, our Nation should be investing our time, our energy and creativity into real solutions that put us toward the path for clean- energy solutions for our future. We've seen time and time again that our congressional district doesn't want to be known for chasing after yesterday's energy solutions, but for leadership towards the renewable energy solutions of today and tomorrow. I urge an ``aye'' vote for my amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAPPS. I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. CAPPS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is a straightforward amendment, and it is overwhelmingly supported by my constituents, so I hope we can all agree to it. The amendment strikes a harmful and unnecessary provision in the underlying bill that mandates new drilling--mandates new drilling--in the sensitive waters off Santa Barbara and Ventura counties in California. The majority says this new drilling is necessary to help fund the transportation bill. But according to CBO, any new drilling off southern California would, at best, generate tens of millions of dollars in revenue, while the gap in transportation funding is measured in the tens of billions of dollars. Mr. Chairman, leaving aside the specious funding arguments that the authors of the bill have made, the people most affected, my constituents, don't want new drilling. My colleagues have heard me invoke Santa Barbara's devastating 1969 oil spill before. And that's because it galvanized central coast residents and virtually the whole State of California against more offshore drilling. We were outraged by the damage to the environment, the wildlife, and to our economy. And we understood the havoc that similar blowouts would wreak upon our economy, especially tourism and fishing industries. It's why California permanently banned new oil and gas leasing in State waters in 1994. It's why Californians fought to pass groundbreaking environmental laws like the National Environmental Policy Act and the Coastal Zone Management Act. It's why some 24 city and county governments, including both Santa Barbara and Ventura counties, have passed measures requiring voter approval before any new onshore facilities to support offshore drilling could be built. And it's why in 2008 then Republican Governor Schwarzenegger told President Bush and Congress to oppose new drilling off the west coast. More recently, an oil company in Santa Barbara thought it could capitalize on the high gasoline prices by placing a measure on the ballot to allow slant drilling from the shore. That plan was rejected by 70 percent--that's right, 70 percent--of the voters in the community that was affected by it, Carpinteria, California. That was just in 2010. We're also aware of the Pentagon's concerns with new drilling in our area so close to Vandenberg Air Force Base. In a 2008 letter to an oil company proposing to slant drill from the shore, the Air Force replied--and I have a copy of the letter to submit with my statement: A drilling and production facility would present a wide range of significant operational constraints, inconsistent with Vandenberg Air Force Base's national space launch mission. Mr. Chairman, Californians have spoken loud and clear: we do not want more drilling off our shores. We want to protect our coastline from the devastation that the 1969 oil spill brought to Santa Barbara. Now, because of this legislation, these communities are at risk again. It's not just the new drilling mandate in this bill, but also because the bill would gut critical environmental laws like CZMA and NEPA, the very laws passed in response to the 1969 spill off the Santa Barbara coast. It's outrageous. This bill specifically denies California--and only California--any role in new offshore drilling decisions under the Coastal Zone Management Act. It also removes California citizens' ability to voice their concerns about new drilling during the environmental review process. I find it ironic that some of the same people in this body who decry an overarching Federal Government seem to have no qualms about forcing new drilling upon a local population which is directly against its wishes. This heavy-handed, know-it-all approach rubber-stamps destructive drilling, cuts out environmental reviews, and closes down the public input. Might be good policy for oil companies; but it's bad policy for my constituents, and it's bad energy policy for our Nation. So, Mr. Chairman, American families want us to pass a balanced transportation bill that creates jobs, fixes our roads and bridges, and ensures that they have a safe way to get to work and back home again. They don't want more politics, especially the kind that puts our coasts, our communities, and our very way of life at risk. So I urge my colleagues to join me in striking these harmful, unnecessary provisions from this bill. Department of the Air Force, Office of the Assistant Secretary, Washington, DC, June 25, 2008. Mr. Ray G. Charles, ExxonMobil Exploration Company, Houston, TX. Mr. Robert E. Nunn, Sunset Exploration, Inc., Brentwood, CA. Dear Messrs Charles and Nunn: We have evaluated your proposal to leverage your option to lease on-shore, sub- surface mineral rights beneath 7,780-acres of South Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) to establish oil and gas drilling and production facilities on 25-acres near Space Launch Complex (SLC) 5 for directional drilling into off- shore reserves. I believe it would be premature to proceed with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) evaluation of your desired location for the reasons stated below. A drilling and production facility at your proposed location would present a wide range of significant operational constraints, inconsistent with VAFB's national space launch mission. Most significantly, your proposed location is within the Impact Limit Lines of all of our active SLCs; it is within the SLC 5 explosives safety clear zone, eliminating SLC 5 as an optional platform for the approximate 40 year life of the Vahevala project; and in the event of a natural disaster or catastrophic mission failure at any of the SLCs, the presence of the facility would severely complicate emergency response. Consistent with these concerns, the Air Force cannot provide you access to your desired 25-acre location on South VAFB. We do understand that if you exercise the option to lease, you will be entitled to reasonable access to onshore, subsurface minerals. Any drilling and oil or gas production on South VAFB would still hamper execution of space launches and create operational impacts. However, there are areas which may present less operational impact than your proposed 25-acre site west of SLC 5. They are generally in the northern and eastern portions of South VAFB, within the 7,780-acre option to lease. We recognize the Air Force's discussions with you regarding the Vahevala project have been protracted. Please accept my personal assurance that this has been due to diligent examination of the proposal at the several levels of command that support the space launch mission at VAFB. As a result of this diligent examination, our military commanders have decided it is simply not consistent with their most fundamental mission responsibilities. As the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Energy and the Environment, I am keenly aware of the crucial contributions of your industry to our nation, and to the national defense. I salute you for your initiatives to enhance the energy security of America, and look forward to the possibility of collaborating with you on projects that might be synergistic with the Air Force mission. Sincerely, Kevin W. Billings, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy, Environment, Safety and Occupational Health. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAPPS. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague, Barbara Lee from California, for yielding to me. And I also want to thank our colleague from New York, Nita Lowey, for her leadership in organizing this opportunity for us to speak, to speak with one voice, we who are Members of Congress, women Members of Congress. And speaking for myself, some of us are mothers, are grandmothers. And my career in public health greatly informs what I'm about to say. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Obama administration's decision to include contraception in their very, very important list of preventive services which will make women's health care more affordable. Let us be clear: This was not a political decision on the part of the administration, on the part of our President, nor was it intended to attack any religious institution. It was a decision based on extensive science and the expert recommendations made by these scientists with the goal in mind of keeping women and their children healthy. However, a great deal of misinformation has been spread about this rule, and some have decided to, again, use women's health as a political football. But the truth is that this issue is not as divisive as many would like it to be. Almost all women use a form of an FDA- approved birth control at one point or another in their lifetime. This includes 98 percent of Catholic women as well. And most Americans, men and women, believe that women--not their bosses--that women should have the choice of which health care services they can and want to access. But, you know, some would have us believe that the administration's rule is in some way radical. It is not. Twenty-eight States already require the coverage of contraception in their insurance plans, and the new Federal standard is based on the one that has worked in my home State of California for many years. It has done so without any religious hospitals dropping coverage or firing employees. It's worked perfectly well. The administration now has made the right call, and I speak on behalf of women in this country urging the administration to stay the course. Now it is my honor and pleasure to yield to our colleague from Maryland, Donna Edwards, a very appropriate person to speak on this topic.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying that goes: when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. These days, it seems the Republican toolbox is down to just one tool. Because for all of the energy choices available to America, every Republican energy plan centers on one thing, drilling for more oil. First it was simply: drill here, drill now. Well, we are. There is more drilling taking place in the U.S. lands and water now than during the Bush administration. Indeed, last year, we relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past 16 years. Clean, renewable energy usage is at an all-time high as well. Then it was: drill for energy independence. It sounds great, but unfortunately we can't simply drill our way to energy independence. Even with all of the expanded drilling we are doing, the plain fact is that we use too much oil and have too few domestic reserves. Next it was: drilling will create jobs and put everyone back to work. That claim was based on borderline fictional numbers in a report bought and paid for--surprise--by the oil industry. Now House Republicans have found a new problem that can only be solved by opening more of the country to risky and reckless drilling: filling the funding gap in the highway trust fund. Their latest proposal would combine three bills to open more of America's most sensitive lands and waters to drilling. Supposedly, this is how we are going to fund repairs to America's crumbling bridges and highways. It shouldn't come as a surprise that again the numbers don't add up. Proponents of this approach now claim that we can make up the $6 billion a year in the highway trust fund by mandating oil drilling just about everywhere. Yet according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, drilling for oil and gas in protected coastal waters, as they wish, at best would produce only about $80 million per year of assets. That's a small fraction of the funds needed to repair and upgrade America's roads and bridges. They also want to open up a pristine coastal plain of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--a special place I've visited--and speed up development of Federal oil shale deposits across the West. Any potential revenues from this drilling, however, will not come close to meeting the needs of the highway trust fund either. Whatever minimal funds do materialize would not be available for several years, maybe a decade. In other words, it is too little and it is too late. Mr. Speaker, the only way to make progress in solving our current fiscal mess is not to create a new round of giveaways and favors to the oil industry. It would be better to start cutting some of the unnecessary tax breaks that the oil and gas industry now receives, and use that money to pay for the transportation bill. That's because they are unnecessary. Of the world's 12 most profitable corporations last year, fully half are oil companies. Repealing these tax breaks would save more than $40 billion over 10 years, which would alone cover almost all the gap in the highway trust fund revenues. Americans are already squeezed at the pump. There is no reason why they should be handing over tax dollars to these wildly profitable companies. Mr. Speaker, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was the worst in history, crippling the gulf coast economy, destroying livelihoods of fishermen and tour operators, and killing wildlife for hundreds of miles. It was eerily similar to the destructive oil spill of 1969. That's when Santa Barbara beaches were smothered with oil--that's where I come from--that killed thousands of birds, fish, and sea lions. Now House Republicans want to expose more of our coastal communities, including Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties, to the tender mercies of the oil and gas industry. They want to mandate new drilling off central coast beaches despite our community's long-held view that the current drilling should be ended, not extended. They want to gut the environmental laws of our State that our community has used to protect its coastline from the kinds of devastation that the 1969 oil spill brought to Santa Barbara. This might be good news for oil companies, but it is bad news for my constituents; and it is bad energy policy. Perhaps most ominously, Mr. Speaker, this proposal is bad news for the prospect of a new transportation bill. These new oil-drilling provisions are poison pills and could doom passage of this desperately needed jobs legislation. This is very reminiscent of the manufactured crisis we saw last year to keep the government funded, pay our bad debts, and continue the payroll tax. We all saw the chaos and gridlock those fights produced. We need to put aside this effort to use the transportation bill as a means to push forward the favored policies for an already-pampered industry.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge the Republican leadership of the House to bring the STOCK Act to the floor. This commonsense legislation would ensure that Members of Congress and their staffs are not able to profit from nonpublic information obtained through their official duties. President Obama has called on Congress to pass this bill, and it has even advanced in the Senate this week with 93 ``yes'' votes. Meanwhile, the House has not acted on the bill, and a markup on it in December was quashed by the Republican leadership. Madam Speaker, Members of Congress need to play by the same rules as everyone else, and our constituents need to have confidence that is the case. Right now, they don't have a lot of confidence in Congress on anything. Congressional approval ratings are at record lows, and reports that Members could possibly profit from nonpublic information is no doubt one more reason for that. Now we can take a step to address this gap by enacting the STOCK Act. Madam Speaker, this is the people's House, and the American people deserve to know that the men and women they send here are working for them.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague from New Jersey for yielding. Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition to this bill. We all know that we have a long-term care crisis in this country. What we have now is an unsustainable patchwork approach, with wealthy people having access to private plans, while almost everyone else finds the costs incredibly prohibitive. These are the folks who fall through the cracks every day, spending down all their assets until there's nothing left, and then relying on our strained Medicaid program for care. This is what the CLASS program tries to avoid. It should provide a modest, but meaningful, benefit to individuals who need support to stay out of costly nursing homes, benefits they've already paid into. We can all agree that the CLASS program, as currently written in the statute, is not perfect, but few things are. We can use it as a framework upon which to fix and implement this program, one that would be amended, improved and made sustainable, rather than destroyed. Repealing the CLASS Act does not remove the Nation's need for long- term care. Rather, it makes the path to sustainable solutions much more difficult. Moreover, in the majority's rush to repeal, they have overlooked a vital component that will also be affected by this bill, the National Clearinghouse for Long Term Care. The clearinghouse, which was established with close-to-unanimous Republican support, is the only dedicated place for individuals to learn about their long-term care options. However, a vote for this bill is a vote to strip funding from this vital public resource. In fact, the original bill abolished the program altogether until I fought to save it in our committee. And while the authorization has been saved, we all know that a program without any funding is not much of a program. So the result is yet one more obstacle for American families trying to care for their loved ones. These are the people who will lose out, and definitely lose out by this repeal. So I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Carpinteria Valley Chamber of Commerce in my Congressional District on its 100th Anniversary. The Carpinteria Valley Chamber of Commerce was chartered in 1912 to serve local businesses by a group of visionary community leaders, many of whose descendants still live and work in Carpinteria. The original charter states that Carpinteria ``had good churches, schools and social condition, plus a population of 500, which was sure to grow with the great inducements of city and rural life, in addition to the magnificent mountain and ocean scenery,'' qualities that continue to draw people to this treasured community on California's South Coast. Over the last century, the Carpinteria Valley Chamber of Commerce has diligently served the Carpinteria Valley business community through its commitment to developing strong and viable local businesses by providing opportunities for business education and networking, promoting tourism, and advocating on behalf of business interests. They have also worked closely with the City of Carpinteria to create strong business outreach and community support. This Chamber is a valued organization of businesses united to create a strong local economy and a positive quality of life by representing business to government, promoting the community, providing networking opportunities and supporting a sustainable future for business and economic development. Mr. Speaker, it has been my honor to represent this outstanding group of business and community leaders over the years. Again, I congratulate them on a century of achievements and outstanding contributions to our community, enhancing the life of all Carpinterians and helping our local businesses stay strong.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. I yield myself the remainder of my time. Mr. Speaker, I will say to my colleague from New York, being here in December, as you mentioned a few times, it was December 22 that Senator McConnell--actually several Senators said to us, Don't just be here, but get to work. Again, I acknowledge that, today, the conferees are meeting for the first time. In closing, I just want to make a few quick points: first, to remind our colleagues what is in this motion. It simply says that the conference should finish its work and report it back to the House by February 17. It doesn't speak to specific outcomes, just that we get our work done and do it in a timely fashion. It is very clear that we need to come together and work on the problems that the American people have sent us here to address. They are rightfully tired of the endless drama and the political posturing in Washington, D.C. They know we can do better, and we know it too. Second of all, we pretty much agree on the need for the basic provisions of this bill--the extension of the payroll tax cut, a tax cut for middle class, hardworking families, an extension of unemployment benefits, and a doc fix for Medicare providers for the rest of the year. Third, it sounds like we all want to get these issues resolved as quickly as possible. There was a lot of agreement here on the floor during the past hour. So I hope we can all agree now to pass this simple and commonsense motion to instruct the conferees to get their work done over the next 3 weeks so that we can get our work done here on the floor and get moving to the agenda that we know lies before us. I urge my colleagues to support this motion, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mrs. CAPPS. Before I yield time, I just want to congratulate the conferees for finally meeting today for the very first time, at least 5 weeks after they were appointed. So that's the point. I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to our colleague from Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee.

Mrs. CAPPS. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to our colleague from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mrs. CAPPS. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to our colleague from North Carolina, David Price.

Mrs. CAPPS. I yield 30 seconds to our colleague.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mrs. CAPPS. I am pleased to yield, Mr. Speaker, 2 minutes to our colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on each side?

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, may I ask, please, how much time I have remaining?

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)