Lois Capps

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mrs. CAPPS. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. My amendment would ensure the Nuclear Regulatory Commission does not move forward with the license renewal process for the Diablo Canyon power plant, located in my congressional district, until advanced seismic studies are completed and independently reviewed. Over the last several months, I've called for a short pause in the relicensing effort currently under way at this nuclear power plant until a myriad of seismic questions at the facility are answered. Further studies are needed to demonstrate if the plant's design and operations can withstand an earthquake and other potential threats, including a previously undetected fault line, the Shoreline Fault, which runs within a few hundred yards of the plant. Even PG&E, the plant's operator, has acknowledged the validity of these concerns. Earlier this year, the utility acceded to my request and asked the NRC to delay the finance issuance of the plant's license renewal while it completes recommended advanced seismic studies of the area. The NRC agreed to review those findings before making a final decision. PG&E also asked the California Public Utilities Commission to suspend proceedings associated with license renewal for Diablo Canyon until the studies are submitted to the NRC. But, Mr. Chairman, PG&E and the NRC are only talking about delaying the final decision. The relicensing process is still going forward, despite the fact that virtually all of the decisions that would be made about the relicensing of the plant would be affected by what the seismic studies tell us. The cart is clearly being put before the horse here, and we need to rectify this. My constituents deserve answers to questions regarding the ability of the plant to withstand an earthquake and nuclear accident at the same time and how long the plant would be self-sustaining in the event of such damage. It is particularly pertinent given that in March the NRC confirmed that Diablo Canyon is one of two nuclear power plants in the highest risk seismic areas in the country. I am, to put it lightly, concerned that the NRC has not taken this seismic risk seriously enough. For example, it has failed to support the recommendations from a 2008 California Energy Commission report clearly delineating that more information is needed to determine the true seismic risk at Diablo Canyon. And just yesterday, an NRC task force review of the Japanese reactor meltdowns determined that our reactors are not sufficiently prepared to respond to catastrophic events or even simple power outages, like the one that triggered the Fukushima meltdown. The NRC should quickly move to adopt the recommendations of this report as well as the full complement of lessons that can be learned from this disaster, and it should do it before moving forward on issuing new operating licenses to PG&E to run Diablo Canyon long into the future. Finally, it is important to note, Mr. Chairman, that there is no hurry to relicense Diablo Canyon. The current operating licenses run to 2024 and 2025. Surely that's more than enough time to adequately investigate seismic concerns in a thoughtful and transparent manner. To be clear, I'm not calling for Diablo Canyon to be shut down or for the plant to be denied new operating licenses. What I am doing with this amendment is asking that the relicensing process be paused, briefly, until comprehensive, independent analyses of the seismic issues are completed and that they be considered as part of the relicensing process. Diablo Canyon provides over 3 million people in California with affordable electricity. It provides many jobs in my district. It's an important element of the tax base of San Luis Obispo County; but this is an issue about safety, and we all agree that safety must be everyone's number one concern here. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that would ensure that this is the case. I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

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

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, on July 20, we mark the 37th anniversary of the Turkish invasion and subsequent occupation of Cyprus. Cyprus has a rich culture and religious history. However, its history has been difficult due to myriad conflicts with its neighbor Turkey, including the occupation, which continues to this day on over a third of the Island. I want to express my concern about violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms of the Cypriot people. Moreover, reports of the segregation of Greek and Turkish Cypriot people are equally troubling. Any means of violence has simply exacerbated conflicts between the Cypriot and Turkish people, and cannot be an option moving forward. Cyprus and the U.S. share a deep and abiding commitment to upholding the ideals of freedom, democracy, justice, human rights, and the international rule of law. Infringements upon these American--and Cypriot--principles should not go unnoticed. I remain steadfast in my dedication to correcting these problems and working with others to ensure that Cyprus can flourish for years to come. Thirty-seven years later, I remain committed to the goal of a reunified and prosperous Cyprus where Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots can live together in peace and security.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Terry Dressler, recently retired after 33 years of public service devoted to protecting the air quality along the Central Coast of California. Terry has had a distinguished career in his field, beginning his work with air pollution control in Ventura in 1978. He then worked in San Luis Obispo for almost eight years before coming to serve the Santa Barbara community for more than twenty three years, most recently serving for the last seven years as the Air Pollution Control Officer for the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (APCD). As a result of the work of Terry and his team, the County of Santa Barbara has improved its air quality through attainment of federal standards and has made major progress towards meeting state standards. Terry has effectively instituted and enforced programs that reduce stationary, marine shipping, and mobile source emissions while raising community awareness of air quality issues. Additionally, he was instrumental in the creation of the District Community Advisory Council and has worked with its members on state and federal clean air strategy. These initiatives have enhanced the agency's reputation for excellence in local and statewide communities. My staff and I have worked closely with Terry in his efforts to lead the district towards its clean air mission and I have seen firsthand the great progress and improved air quality standards instituted by Terry and the APCD. His strong leadership and knowledge have directly, and positively, influenced the health of the residents of the County of Santa Barbara. Terry is recognized as a dedicated public servant who has devoted his career to protecting the health and safety of the citizens of the County of Santa Barbara and the State of California. Terry's accomplishments in the field of air quality and his charismatic presence have left a lasting impact on his colleagues, staff, and community members, and we can all breathe a little easier as a result of his outstanding efforts. I am pleased to commend Terry for his commitment to excellence in the field of air quality, and I wish him a happy retirement surfing the Central Coast.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I will vote yes on this resolution because I oppose a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood in the U.N. We all know the status quo in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank is unsustainable. It's bad for Israelis, it's bad for Palestinians, and it's bad for the United States. I believe that a negotiated agreement between both the Israelis and Palestinians is the only way to reach a just and lasting peace in the region. But peace will never be achieved with senseless terrorism or soaring speeches or military might. Only through direct, honest, and earnest negotiations will the dream of peace be realized. That is why I believe that both sides must put aside their preconditions and come to the table immediately. As former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert recently wrote, peace will only be achieved ``with the courage to take decisions that will change a reality which is increasingly creating a substantive threat on the State of Israel's stature, on the international support it receives, and on its future as a Jewish democratic state.'' Yet, I'm concerned this resolution--instead of rising to Olmert's noble challenge--is yet another missed opportunity for the U.S. to advance peace in the region. Just last December this House passed unanimously a substantially similar resolution opposing the unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood. What are we accomplishing by restating our opposition? Mr. Speaker, I worry that we have become too engrossed in the rhetorical debate of peace and are neglecting to fully pursue it. We could easily fill this Chamber with the words spoken over the years debating this conflict, but the room filled with actions taken to end it would sadly be much, much smaller. This is a pivotal moment--a moment that demands bold, courageous leadership from Prime Minister Netanyahu, from President Abbas, and from President Obama. It is a moment that requires everyone--Israeli and Palestinian, friend and foe--to come together and resolve this crisis once and for all. Congress can and should play a constructive role in this debate. But I'm concerned that repeatedly criticizing the Palestinians--and only the Palestinians--risks pushing Israelis and Palestinians further apart rather than bringing them closer together. Unfortunately, both Israelis and Palestinians are engaged in activities that are undermining peace efforts, and we must not ignore this mutual responsibility for the conflict. And I'm also concerned that this resolution further isolates the United States and Israel and undermines our credibility as a serious broker for peace. There is no denying that both Israel and the United States are growing increasingly isolated in the international community. As President Obama said, ``the international community is tired of an endless process that never procures an outcome.'' This resolution does nothing to change that. Rather than spending our time reiterating the already established position against a unilateral declaration of statehood, we should be focusing on concrete measures that advance peace. We should be looking for ways to help Israel adapt to the new realities of the Arab Spring rather than simply reinforcing the status quo. And we should be encouraging both the Palestinians and Israelis to negotiate rather than just criticizing the Palestinians for not doing so. At this critical juncture, with so much uncertainty and unrest throughout the Middle East, the U.S. needs to engage in constructive dialogue with all parties and help them bring this tragic conflict to an end. The U.S. cannot make peace in the region, only the parties can. But the U.S. has always been an indispensable agent in brokering peace. That is why it is imperative that we reclaim that constructive role and foster a negotiated settlement that ensures the security of Israel, recognizes the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people, and promotes U.S. national security interests.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to my colleague from Colorado, the author of the bill. Section 328 of the Clean Air Act is what is at issue here today in this amendment. It was created more than 20 years ago, largely at the insistence of California officials. In fact, my Republican predecessor, Congressman Lagomarsino, introduced this legislation because residents were unhappy about uncontrolled air pollution from offshore drilling, as well as local industry and business groups who were upset that offshore sources were basically free to pollute, while onshore sources bore the burden of heavier regulation to try to make up for the degraded air quality. Only two States now have this permission. I yield the balance of my time to my colleague from Delaware (Mr. Carney).

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

Mrs. CAPPS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment that I'm offering with Representatives Carney and Castor addresses one of several concerns we have about this bill: its harmful impact on State programs that today are working to issue permits while protecting local air quality. Last month, the Energy and Power Subcommittee heard testimony from officials of the States of Delaware and California. Both expressed serious concerns about the impact of this bill on local air quality. The Delaware Department of Natural Resources has this to say about the legislation: ``The constraints placed on States' rights and authorities will adversely affect our State's ability to protect public health and welfare from the harmful effects of air pollution.'' The California Air Resources Board also testified that this measure ``could have far- reaching, unintended consequences on public health.'' California and its local air districts in some cases require emission controls that go beyond Federal law, and that is to address our unique pollution problems. For example, emissions from commercial harbor craft and oceangoing vessels represent the largest source of smog-forming air pollution in the entire Santa Barbara County. These emissions account for over 40 percent of our local air pollution. In response, the California Air Resources Board adopted rules to help coastal areas like California come into attainment with ozone and particulate matter air quality standards. But H.R. 2021 would nullify some of these State requirements, and it would increase pollution by preventing our local air quality district from incorporating them into their air permits for offshore drilling production and processing. It's very critical to our local air quality and to public health that emissions from these marine vessels and offshore drilling are subject to commonsense regulations, and that is why this simple amendment is before us today. It says that if a State with delegated authority wants to enact more stringent air quality protections for offshore drilling, it can continue to do so. Mr. Chairman, this is about giving flexibility to our local air quality districts so that they can apply the technologies that work best for them--they've been doing so for 20 years--so they can continue their work protecting our air quality and the health of our communities. This amendment says that a one-size-fits-all approach that comes from Washington politicians and giant multinational oil companies is the wrong approach. I urge my colleagues to support this straightforward amendment. It's common sense. It will allow State and local air districts to continue to do their job to protect the air quality of coastal communities like the central coast of California--nothing more, and nothing less. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2021, the so-called Jobs and Energy Permitting Act. I oppose this legislation for several reasons. First, it gives oil companies a pass to pollute. It exempts offshore drilling companies from applying pollution control technologies to vessels like crew and supply boats, which actually account for most of the air pollution from drilling off my congressional district's coast. It also opens up a loophole for drill ships to pollute with no limits while the ship moves into place. And, instead of measuring pollution at the source, itself, H.R. 2021 allows oil companies to measure the impacts at the shore, with net results of more air pollution overall. Second, H.R. 2021 does away with proven processes that provide an expert, efficient, and impartial review of air permitting decisions. I would note that in 20 years, the Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District has never denied an offshore drilling permit, and there is more drilling off my district than just about anywhere in this country. The local air permitting review process works. We don't need to change it. In addition, this bill's provision to remove all appellate action to Washington, D.C., is wholly unfair. This limits the rights of my constituents to participate in very important matters affecting their health. It forces cash-strapped local governments to travel thousands of miles to defend their permitting decisions, placing a serious burden on local taxpayers. Finally, and perhaps most importantly to my constituents, H.R. 2021 poses real health risks to the communities surrounding offshore drilling by weakening local air quality standards. Pollution from the nearly two dozen oil platforms and the vessels that supply them in the Santa Barbara Channel includes high levels of airborne pollutants. These pollutants can cause severe lung problems and other major health issues. That's why our State adopted rules to strengthen air quality standards and help protect coastal residents from this pollution. It makes no sense to block these rules that will help my community clean up its air. In sum, Madam Chair, H.R. 2021 is a bad bill. Let me also address a theme that's been repeated on the other side. Supporters of this bill continue to parrot the Shell Oil talking point that it has taken them 5 years to get a Clean Air Act permit for their proposed drilling in the Arctic Ocean. They cite this 5-year delay as the justification for this legislation. This claim might make a nice sound-bite, but it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the facts. Here are the facts. First, Shell has pulled its permit applications, modified its proposed operations, and changed its target drilling sites on numerous occasions over the past few years. Shell pulled the permit application for drilling in the Beaufort Sea for 2 years until going back to EPA with a brand new request in 2010. Every time Shell changed its plans, EPA had to adjust its assessment of the potential impacts on air quality and public health. That's what we expect EPA to do. No one wants EPA to take a one-size-fits-all approach to permitting these major sources of pollution. Second, Shell delayed final EPA action on its air permit for drilling in the Chukchi Sea by submitting insufficient permit applications. That's Shell's fault, not EPA's. Finally, EPA has prioritized Shell's permit applications and finalized them quickly. The two Shell permits at issue were proposed and finalized within 3 to 4 months of receiving completed applications. Both went from submission of a completed application to a decision by the Environmental Appeals Board within 1 year. EPA now says it is on track to finalize Shell's revised permits by the end of this summer. If this bill is about addressing Shell's so-called 5-year permitting delay, then I see no basis for this legislation. The truth is that this bill isn't about expediting the permit process. It's about rolling back air quality protections. This bill will create more problems than it purports to solve because it will allow oil companies to pollute more offshore and cut concerned stakeholders out of the very process itself. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Republicans' misguided attack on Medicare and Medicaid. No matter what the other side says, their plans for Medicare and Medicaid will end them, leaving them as nothing but a shell. This is a question of priorities. Which is the best choice? Either closing the doughnut hole so seniors, including 7,000 in my district, don't have to choose between their medications and paying the rent, or giving huge subsidies to oil companies? Or this choice: telling people, including 100,000 in my congressional district who are in their 40s and 50s, to hurry up and save another $200,000 each before they retire so they can pay for health care since Medicare's guarantee is gone? Or continuing tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires? The Republican budget is not a plan for our future. It's a recipe for disaster. It ends Medicare and Medicaid, puts our seniors at risk. Stand up for our current and future seniors. Say ``no'' to the Republican attack on Medicare and Medicaid.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and the Agriculture appropriations bill. Instead of helping Americans hit hardest by the recent recession today, we are debating a Republican spending bill that guts critical nutrition programs which literally put food on the table so that millions of low-income women, children, and seniors don't go hungry. This bill hurts low-income seniors through cuts to the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. It cuts The Emergency Food Assistance Program, which could cause our local food banks to close their doors. And it slashes the budget of the Women, Infants, and Children, WIC, program, the effects of which will leave hundreds of thousands of women and children without adequate nutrition. WIC not only keeps our low-income families from hunger, but by emphasizing adequate nutrition, the program reduces the incidence of low birth-weight babies, combats the childhood obesity epidemic, and promotes school readiness by giving children the nutritional building blocks their brains need to develop at a critical stage. Moreover, as it links these families to the local health infrastructure, it also increases child immunization rates. These benefits are not just to the child and the family. In fact, the program reduces overall health care costs. For every $1 invested in WIC, we save about $2 to $3 in health care costs just in the first 2 months of life. This is an incredible feat. It's one that should be expanded. Instead, the bill before us slashes these programs, plain and simple, with only one result: more Americans going hungry. When I asked my local food safety net providers what the Republican cuts would do to our community, the answer was clear: Without this assistance, which choice will it be: rent or food? My constituents have been loud and clear on this issue, Stop trying to cut the budget on the backs of the poor, the elderly, and our children. I urge my colleagues to start listening to their communities. Vote ``no'' on the rule, and vote ``no'' on this devastating bill.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chair, I rise to support the Clarke-Higgins-Reichert- Capps Amendment. This bipartisan effort will ensure funding for the country's urban areas involved in preventing and responding to natural disasters and acts of terrorism. The Urban Area Security Initiative focuses on enhancing preparedness in urban areas. It does so by directing federal funds to places deemed to be at the highest risk for man-made or natural disasters. For example, metropolitan Oxnard--located in my congressional district--has been included several times in recent years due to the strategic assets located in the area. However, the underlying bill would arbitrarily limit eligibility to 10 urban areas total. This would eliminate the Oxnard's ability to access the funds necessary to prevent and prepare for all types of hazards. Mr. Chair, the Oxnard metropolitan area has just as much need to protect its citizens from terrorist threats as any other large city in the U.S. For example, Oxnard is home to Naval Base Ventura County. This strategic military installation supports ongoing military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as important D.O.D. weapons testing programs. The Port of Hueneme--the only deepwater harbor between Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay area--serves international businesses and ocean carriers from the Pacific Rim and Europe. The Oxnard coastline is dotted with offshore oil and gas platforms, power plants and chemical facilities. And Oxnard is located alongside U.S. Highway 101--the only north- south evacuation route on California's Central Coast. That's why the Department of Homeland Security has granted millions of dollars to the Oxnard UASI over the years. It's recognized the need to support this community's efforts to: train and equip first responders, improve interoperable communications, establish fusion centers, and protect critical infrastructure. It knows it must enhance the capacity to respond to all-hazard events, including tsunamis, wildfires, mudslides or earthquakes. And it understands that investing in local programs, like ``Ventura Get Ready,'' will help ensure the safety and security of our citizens. Mr. Chair, we all know this is a tough budget environment and that we need to make targeted investments. But making more than 50 cities ineligible for UASI funds--regardless of threat and vulnerability levels--is shortsighted and wrong. These communities contain numerous assets, resources and critical infrastructure that are vulnerable to attack and that are tremendously important to the nation. Now is not the time to eliminate the eligibility of our threatened urban areas from UASI funding. We cannot lay the entire financial burden of securing our cities on local authorities, first responders, and law enforcement and expect to adequately protect our citizens and make our cities safe. Let's remove this harmful UASI language from the bill and ensure our cities have the necessary capabilities to safeguard our communities. Vote ``yes'' on the bipartisan Clarke-Higgins amendment.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor a constituent of mine from the 23rd District of California. His name is Mr. Jack Sutherlin. Mr. Sutherlin, of Santa Maria, California, served honorably in the Coast Guard during World War II. He was stationed off the California coast. Mr. Sutherlin's brave actions on December 25, 1943, resulted in the safe passage of two escort carriers down the Pacific, along the coast, and into San Diego Bay. I am very proud to represent Mr. Sutherlin, an example to us all for his dedication to our country and for his lifetime of serving our community. Mr. Speaker, the debt we owe to our Nation's veterans is immeasurable, and Mr. Sutherlin is no exception. In fact, he's an example of those of that Greatest Generation who served nobly during the Second World War. His actions in 1943 leave me humbled and honored by his sacrifices. We can never repay his service, but we can act honorably on his behalf and behave in a way that is indicative of a grateful Nation. Singling out events like these are important to remind us that acknowledging our veterans' bravery and sacrifice is never done. Despite the decades that have passed, our country remains indebted to the heroic actions of Mr. Sutherlin and his many brothers in arms. It's also imperative to remember that we are still a Nation at war and that veterans who served decades ago or just months ago or are serving today deserve our support, our appreciation, and our profound gratitude. Mr. Sutherlin waited too long to be officially recognized, and I'm sure he would agree that all veterans deserve timely and genuine acknowledgements of their service. I am proud of the work my staff completed to assist Mr. Sutherlin achieve a formal recognition from the commandant of the United States Coast Guard. Just a few days ago, the veterans clinic in Santa Maria, California, hosted a reception and a ceremony where the letter of recognition from the commandant was read and where many of the Coast Guard on active duty stationed at Morro Bay, California, were present to see someone of the generation preceding them being acknowledged. I consider my work on behalf of veterans to be one of my most sacred responsibilities as a Member of Congress. Veterans like Mr. Sutherlin represent the best this country has to offer, and ensuring his work is recognized is of paramount importance. It's an honor to represent a man of such integrity, conviction, and dedication to his country. I'm proud to include his service in the Congressional Record of the United States Congress.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter into the Congressional Record the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation's Santa Barbara Declaration, drafted February 17, 2011. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, a non-profit and non-partisan organization based in Santa Barbara that has worked for peace and the abolition of nuclear weapons since 1982, hosted a conference in February 2011 on the dangers of nuclear deterrence. The statement, drafted by experts from around the world, outlines many reasons to work toward the eradication of nuclear weapons. I urge my colleagues to read the Santa Barbara Declaration and strive to build a more peaceful world. Reject Nuclear Deterrence: An Urgent Call to Action Nuclear deterrence is a doctrine that is used as a justification by nuclear weapon states and their allies for the continued possession and threatened use of nuclear weapons. Nuclear deterrence is the threat of a nuclear strike in response to a hostile action. However, the nature of the hostile action is often not clearly defined, making possible the use of nuclear weapons in a wide range of circumstances. Nuclear deterrence threatens the murder of many millions of innocent people, along with severe economic, climate, environmental, agricultural and health consequences beyond the area of attack. Nuclear deterrence requires massive commitments of resources to the industrial infrastructures and organizations that make up the world's nuclear weapons establishments, its only beneficiaries. Despite its catastrophic potential, nuclear deterrence is widely, though wrongly, perceived to provide protection to nuclear weapon states, their allies and their citizens. Nuclear deterrence has numerous major problems: 1. Its power to protect is a dangerous fabrication. The threat or use of nuclear weapons provides no protection against an attack. 2. It assumes rational leaders, but there can be irrational or paranoid leaders on any side of a conflict. 3. Threatening or committing mass murder with nuclear weapons is illegal and criminal. It violates fundamental legal precepts of domestic and international law, threatening the indiscriminate slaughter of innocent people. 4. It is deeply immoral for the same reasons it is illegal: it threatens indiscriminate and grossly disproportionate death and destruction. 5. It diverts human and economic resources desperately needed to meet basic human needs around the world. Globally, approximately $100 billion is spent annually on nuclear forces. 6. It has no effect against non-state extremists, who govern no territory or population. 7. It is vulnerable to cyber attack, sabotage, and human or technical error, which could result in a nuclear strike. 8. It sets an example for additional countries to pursue nuclear weapons for their own nuclear deterrent force. Its benefits are illusory. Any use of nuclear weapons would be catastrophic. Nuclear deterrence is discriminatory, anti-democratic and unsustainable. This doctrine must be discredited and replaced with an urgent commitment to achieve global nuclear disarmament. We must change the discourse by speaking truth to power and speaking truth to each other. Before another nuclear weapon is used, nuclear deterrence must be replaced by humane, legal and moral security strategies. We call upon people everywhere to join us in demanding that the nuclear weapon states and their allies reject nuclear deterrence and negotiate without delay a Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of all nuclear weapons. Blase Bonpane, Ph.D.*, Director, Office of the Americas; Theresa Bonpane*, Founding Director, Office of the Americas; John Burroughs, Ph.D.*, Executive Director, Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy; Jacqueline Cabasso*, Executive Director, Western States Legal Foundation; Ben Cohen, Co- Founder, Ben & Jerry's; Kate Dewes, Ph.D.*, Co- Director, Disarmament and Security Centre, New Zealand; Bob Dodge, M.D.*, Coordinator, Beyond War Nuclear Weapons Abolition Team; Dick Duda, Ph.D.*, founding member, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation--Silicon Valley; Denise Duffield*, Associate Director, Physicians for Social Responsibility--Los Angeles; Richard Falk, J.S.D.*, Chair, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation; Commander Robert Green (Royal Navy, ret.)*, Co-Director, Disarmament and Security Centre, New Zealand; David Krieger, Ph.D.*, President, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation; Robert Laney, J.D.*, Secretary, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation; Kayo Maeta, Chair, Women's Peace Committee, Soka Gakkai; Kenji Shiratsuchi, Chair, Youth Peace Conference, Soka Gakkai; Diane Meyer Simon, Founder and President Emeritus, Global Green USA; Dr. Jennifer Allen Simons, C.M., Founder and President of The Simons Foundation; Steven Starr*, Senior Scientist, Physicians for Social Responsibility; Hirotsugu Terasaki, Executive Director, Peace Affairs, Soka Gakkai International; Rick Wayman*, Director of Programs, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation; Bill Wickersham, Ph.D.*, Adjunct Professor of Peace Studies, University of Missouri. *Initial signer from The Dangers of Nuclear Deterrence Conference, hosted by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Santa Barbara, February 16-17, 2011.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of an American hero and my friend, Rear Admiral George H. Strohsahl. RADM Strohsahl passed away on Sunday, May 22, 2011. Over the course of his life, his vision and dedication to Naval Base Ventura County (NBVC) and the Ventura County community at large were greatly inspiring. It is truly an honor to pay tribute to him today. Admiral Strohsahl's Navy career spanned 39 years starting as a Midshipman at the Naval Academy in 1955 and finishing as the Commander for the Naval Air Warfare Center, the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation organization of Naval Aviation with 10 installations across the country and over 25,000 employees. During his career he flew jet attack aircraft from aircraft carriers in both the Pacific and Atlantic fleets which included two tours of combat flying in Vietnam and command of an A-6 squadron. He was the Air Boss on USS Nimitz and played himself in the popular Kirk Douglas movie ``Final Countdown.'' He was the director of the Tactical Air Analysis office in the Pentagon which was part of the McNamara systems analysis team known as the ``Whiz Kids.'' He was Program Manager for the F/A-18 Hornet Family of aircraft which was and still is the largest aircraft acquisition program in the Navy. He commanded the Pacific Missile Test Center at Point Mugu from 1988 to 1990 and as senior Naval officer for the South Central California area was active in many civic organizations in Ventura County at that time. Over the years, I have worked with RADM Strohsahl on many issues that affect Naval Base Ventura County. I particularly appreciated his leadership during our fight against the Base Realignment and Closure Commission process. His testimony before the 2005 Commission was instrumental in minimizing the amount of technical work being removed and job loss from our base. He was a steadfast advocate for the Navy and worked endlessly to ensure others understood the importance of our military. RADM Strohsahl was married for 44 years to the late Marvalyn Fiske. They raised three children, one of whom resides now in Ventura with her husband and family. He is blessed today to be married to Mary Anne Vernallis of Newbury Park whose late husband, Sam, was a long-time associate of George's in the Navy and a well-respected civic leader in Ventura County. Together, George and Mary Anne share 5 children and 8 grandchildren. I know I speak on behalf of the entire Ventura County community when I say RADM Strohsahl will be greatly missed. His commitment and hard work on behalf of NVBC and our community at large will be felt for generations to come. While his resume is tremendously impressive, he might best be known by his family, friends and co-workers as a generous, patriotic and altruistic man. It is a great honor to pay tribute to his life.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of May as National Stroke Awareness Month, the time each year that we as a nation reaffirm our support in the fight against stroke, a leading cause of death and disability. National Stroke Awareness Month plays an important role in educating Americans on the warning signs and risk factors for strokes, as well as how the latest neuroscience discoveries enhance our understanding of strokes and lead to new and exciting treatments. According to the American Stroke Association, a stroke occurs every 40 seconds, affecting roughly 795,000 Americans each year--killing approximately 136,000 people a year, and costing the nation through healthcare services, medications, and missed days of work. As a co-chair of the Congressional Heart and Stroke Coalition, and through my experience as a nurse and health care advocate, I know firsthand the importance of educating the American people to recognize the warning signs of a stroke and be ready to act fast. Moreover, the most effective method to combat stroke is to prevent it, and that to do that, we need to place a greater focus on educating the American people on the risk factors associated with an increased risk of stroke: high blood pressure, atrial fibrilliation, diabetes, heightened cholesterol, lack of exercise, and smoking. Family history of stroke, gender, and place of residence are also factors. While strokes are one of the major reasons that quality of life can diminish as people get older, they are not inevitable. The same steps that contribute to keeping physical vigor--regular exercise, a healthy weight, and a balanced diet--can maximize the chances of staying sharp and alert for decades to come. Mr. Speaker, based on basic science findings, neuroscientists have developed several options for treating stroke, including clot-busting drugs and minimally invasive surgery techniques. Yet despite numerous advances, the global and national prognosis for stroke is dire. According to a study by the American Heart Association and the American Stroke Association published earlier this year, stroke prevalence is projected to increase by 25 percent in the U.S. by 2030, and direct medical costs for treating stroke are expected to increase by 238 percent, to $95.6 billion within the same time period. This makes continued strong and sustainable funding for the National Institutes of Health even more critical. By supporting the National Institutes of Health, researchers will be able to discover better ways to protect the brain from potential strokes, minimize the damage that occurs, and develop better ways to repair and reorganize the brain after a stroke. For all of these reasons, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing National Stroke Awareness Month, celebrating the outstanding contributions the field of neuroscience is making to learn more about stroke; the contributions of the American Stroke Association in educating the public about stroke warning signs and treatment; and the investments made in scientific research through the National Institutes of Health to develop treatments for those suffering from this devastating disease.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this reckless bill. I cannot count the number of times Members on both sides of this aisle have decried shortages in the primary care workforce of our communities, and working, often in a bipartisan manner, to develop ways to increase the primary care ranks. Yet today, the next victim in the Republican obsession with repealing the Affordable Care Act is a program that does deal with these shortages. It increases our primary care physician ranks, and trains them with special expertise in serving the community. The bill before us would defund this program, taking many qualified Americans out of the primary care workforce before they even have an opportunity to join it. Moreover, cutting these training programs would also affect already existing jobs at the 11 community-based entities that have already expanded their programs to train these new doctors. Taking away this funding will force possible layoffs and have a chilling effect on other sites developing this type of program. Yes, it is paid for through mandatory funding. But that is not unheard of or even unusual. In fact, the federally funded Graduate Medical Education program, which has had measured success in strengthening our health care workforce, is a mandatory spending program. The program the Republicans are trying to cut today is simply a complement to this GME program, focused on community-based care and prevention. The choice on H.R. 1216 is clear: if you believe that we do not have a jobs problem and that we have all the doctors we will ever need, then go ahead and vote for this bill. But if you believe that we need to create good jobs and the professionals to fill them, that we need more primary care providers, you must vote against H.R. 1216 and protect this very important program. We can't have it both ways. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mrs. CAPPS. I rise in strong opposition to this dangerous amendment. Last month, the Republican majority brought us to the brink of government shutdown over its disapproval of Planned Parenthood. But here we are again, a new week, but the same obsession with reopening the culture wars. This time, instead of saying that Congress knows better than a woman and her family about her reproductive health care, this amendment takes one step further. It says that Congress knows better than our medical doctors and medical educators about what our medical training curricula should look like. This is an unprecedented restriction, one that goes against the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's guidance and against medical ethics themselves. Medical education is supposed to prepare our future doctors for whatever they may come across in their practice. This includes women whose lives are in danger due to their pregnancy, for whom terminating a pregnancy is the only way that woman will stay alive. Keeping future providers from learning these procedures--and it is an option that they may choose only if they choose to learn it--puts these women at risk. Regardless of what one's views are on women's reproductive rights, I think we can all agree that our future medical providers should be trained and ready for any medical emergency that they might encounter. To play politics with their education and the lives of women is an embarrassment. Madam Chair, it is time for this Congress to learn to trust the American people, to trust our doctors, to trust our families, and to trust women. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Washington, DC, May 24, 2011. ACOG Opposes the Foxx Amendment to H.R. 1216 The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), representing 55,000 ob-gyns and partners in women's health, opposes the Foxx amendment to H.R. 1216, an amendment to the Public Health Service Act. The Foxx amendment would disallow GME funding for abortion training, part of ob-gyn educational curricula in accredited medical residency programs, and unnecessarily duplicate already recognized protections for medical students and teaching hospitals who choose to not participate in abortion training. Residency education standards are set by the universally recognized Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) whose Residency Review Committees (RRCs) accredit residency programs. These standards, supported by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, require that ``experience with induced abortion must be part of residency training.'' These standards already fully accommodate institutions, programs, and individuals who choose not to participate in abortions or abortion training. Every ob-gyn residency program may opt out of providing in-house training, and is required only to offer their residents an opportunity for abortion training at an outside facility. Similarly, residents with religious or moral objections may opt out of receiving abortion training, and are required only to be trained in management of abortion complications--not the provision of abortion, but the care of potential consequent medical complications. Training in abortion, for those institutions, programs, and individuals who choose to participate, is important to women's health. Federal funds may be used for abortions in cases of rape, incest, or when a woman's life is endangered. Girls and women who are victims of rape or incest, or whose lives are endangered by their pregnancies, must have continued access to this surgical procedure, and this care must be safely provided by trained medical specialists. The Nation's women's health physicians urge a no-vote on the Foxx amendment. Should you have any questions, please contact Nevena Minor, ACOG Government Affairs Manager, at nminor@acog.org or 202-314-2322. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the Dos Pueblos High School Science Bowl Team. Michael Feldman, Daniel Gay, Ilan Goodman, Andy Granatelli, Daniel Richman and their coach Chris Jones made the South and Central Coast proud this month as representatives from California at the 2011 National Science Bowl, sponsored by the US Department of Energy in DC. The U.S. Department of Energy National Science Bowl is a nationwide academic competition that tests students' knowledge in all areas of science. High school and middle school students are quizzed in a fast paced question-and-answer format similar to Jeopardy. Competing teams from diverse backgrounds are comprised of four students, one alternate, and a teacher who serves as an advisor and coach. The National Science Bowl's high school competition involves more than 13,000 students and is the only science competition in the United States sponsored by a federal agency. In addition to their academic expertise, these students and their coach proved to be a popular and supportive team in DC. Honored by their peers, the DP team won the Civility Award, which recognizes excellent sportsmanship. In honor of winning this award, the team earned a nine-day trip to Alaska to study the region's glacial, biological and geological treasures. Mr. Speaker, we speak often in DC of ``winning the future.'' I'm so proud to represent this remarkable group of students, and their coach, who are working tirelessly towards this goal. Today I mark their accomplishment and encourage all young people across the country to follow their example, and push themselves in math and science fields. Our competitiveness as a nation depends on it.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1231, the last and most egregious bill in the Republicans' oil addiction agenda. It's unconscionable that we're voting today to expand offshore drilling even before stronger safeguards can be put in place, to mandate new leasing off the economically important coastlines of southern California, Alaska, and the entire eastern seaboard, each time these waters are open to drilling. And it's cynical to claim that more drilling will relieve high gas prices. More drilling only means more profits for the oil industry, not lower costs at the pump. We all know oil companies hardly need a boost right now. They're receiving billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies and reaping record profits. On top of that, the oil industry is already drilling more than ever before. For example, offshore production has increased by more than a third in the last 2 years, and the gulf produced 1.6 million barrels of oil per day last year, an all-time record. Yet, despite all that drilling, gas prices continue to soar, and the reason is clear: More drilling here in the U.S. has little effect on the global oil market. Nearly three-quarters of the world's proven oil resources are owned by OPEC nations. And even if we expanded offshore drilling significantly, we wouldn't see an impact on gas prices until 2030; and even then, it would be a matter of just 5 cents a gallon. This is according to the Energy Information Administration. If, instead, we further raised fuel efficiency standards, we could lower driver bills at the pump. Building cars that go further on a gallon of gas is the best way to protect American families. It also creates jobs. It slashes our oil imports, and it reduces dangerous air pollution. This is the kind of solution we need right now. We shouldn't be promoting reckless drilling that will fail to lower gas prices and endanger our coastlines. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 1231.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a valued constituent and a good friend, Dr. Wallace Shepherd. Dr. Shepherd came to the Second Baptist Church of Santa Barbara as pastor in 2006. Since then, Pastor Shepherd has reestablished Santa Barbara's Martin Luther King Day event as a capstone celebration on the central coast of California. He is an active board member of the Endowment for Youth program, which supports the education of underprivileged children through tutoring and scholarships. Dr. Shepherd also helped to found Eco Faith, a nonprofit organization that promotes conservation of energy in churches and houses of worship. He has been appointed evangelism director of the Central District of California, and also the vice president of the Third Sunday Fellowship for Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties. But as our House has just witnessed, he is at the core a powerful presence and a humble servant in the name of his faith. I am honored to welcome him here to Congress, and thank him for his invaluable service to our community and to our country.