Lois Capps

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 702. Not only does this bill incentivize more oil development while ignoring its impact on our climate, it also essentially guarantees billions more in profits for oil companies while doing virtually nothing to help consumers. There are many more important issues that we should be spending our time on to actually help American families, like raising the minimum wage and making college more affordable, but instead we are passing a bill to help oil companies make more money. Additionally, section 3 of the bill prohibits any Federal official from taking any action that could potentially restrict the export of oil. This broad language could seriously undermine critical health and safety responsibilities of the Federal Government. For example, under current law, the Secretary of Transportation has the authority to shut down a crude oil pipeline if it poses a threat to life, property, or the environment. But what if an oil pipeline leading to an export terminal were in imminent danger of rupturing? Would the Secretary still have the authority to shut down that line, or would that action be considered a restriction on exporting crude oil under this bill? Mr. Chairman, these are not hypothetical questions. This authority was recently used in my district to shut down line 901 of the Plains All American Pipeline when it ruptured last May. Since line 901 is the only way for the nearby offshore oil platforms to transport their oil to refineries, these platforms have had to shut down production entirely. Nearly 5 months after the spill, line 901 remains shut down, and there is no indication that it will be restarted in the near future. It is not hard to imagine a similar event happening again, and the Secretary's authority to protect public health, property, and the environment during such an event must not be undermined. Yet, if this bill were law, the Secretary's authority could be preempted entirely by section 3 of this bill. In other words, the bill could create a scenario in which the perceived right of oil companies to export their oil supersedes our very real responsibility to protect public health and safety. The American people deserve better. This is a fatally flawed bill and sets the wrong priorities. I urge its defeat.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill, which is just another political stunt to put the government between a woman and her healthcare provider. This is yet another instance where the House majority is exploiting their position to use hard-earned taxpayer dollars to fund partisan, baseless smear campaigns. Today we are asked to vote to do it again. Despite finding no evidence of wrongdoing through multiple congressional committee hearings, including those conducted by the Energy and Commerce Committee, despite numerous State-level investigations that have cleared Planned Parenthood of these charges, and despite reports from outside experts that there is no evidence of illegal activity, the House seems insistent on doubling down on this bad idea to waste taxpayer money and time on yet another fabricated investigation. It is time to say ``no more.'' There are far too many real issues facing our country that Congress should, instead, be addressing. Vote ``no'' on this resolution.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill and to the political gamesmanship that continues to put our Nation at risk. Today we witness yet another attack by some of our colleagues who are obsessed with ending access to Planned Parenthood, a trusted healthcare provider in my community. But today's bill takes a slightly different approach, one that cynically tells a woman that the government knows better than she does when it comes to telling her who she should trust with her health and well-being. As a woman, a mother, and a nurse, this is insulting. These attacks have to stop. Republicans are willfully putting their heads in the sand. They think it is no big deal to shut down hundreds of clinics offering essential services not available anywhere else; they think that the rest of the safety net can easily pick up the slack, ignoring the fact that those providers themselves have said they cannot; and they think it is worth shutting down the government to achieve this goal. Moreover, I would just like to emphasize that these women have chosen to go to Planned Parenthood for their care. Suggesting that they can just get their care from some other provider is both callous and condescending. With all due respect to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, which provider a woman chooses to go to for her own reproductive health care is not your decision to make--at least, it shouldn't be. I urge my colleagues to trust women to make their own decisions. Vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the city of Carpinteria. Incorporated on September 28, 1965, the city of Carpinteria is home to over 13,000 residents on the central coast of California. It is known as one of America's finest small towns, and Carpinteria has also been recognized as one of the American cities with the highest quality of life. The city of Carpinteria is a leader in environmental stewardship, working to protect California's precious coastline. In fact, Carpinteria City Beach has been recognized as the world's safest beach. Their local economy has thrived with its vibrant cultural history, and this unique agricultural region is home to California's famed avocado festival. I am proud to honor the city of Carpinteria on their 50th anniversary. It is a key treasure on the central coast.

Ms. CAPPS

Ms. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in staunch opposition to this dangerous bill. Planned Parenthood provides exactly the types of interventions that prevent unintended pregnancies and the need for an abortion in the first place, like birth control options and medically accurate sexual health education. If this bill becomes law, these important services Planned Parenthood brings to our communities will disappear, and the health of our communities will pay the price. We keep hearing that the work of Planned Parenthood would be done by other healthcare providers, mostly community health centers, and while that might sound like an easy shift, it doesn't work that way. Madam Speaker, I have a letter here from the California Primary Care Association. In it, they write: ``Eliminating Planned Parenthood from our State's comprehensive network of care would put untenable stress on remaining providers. We do not have the capacity for such an increase in care.'' This is the direct quote from the health centers that the majority expects to pick up the slack if Planned Parenthood is defunded. It would be untenable. Supporters of this bill are willfully putting their heads in the sand. They think it is no big deal to shut down hundreds of clinics offering essential services that are not available anywhere else. They think it is worth shutting down the government to achieve this goal. This political theater has to stop. We need to trust women and their healthcare providers to make their own medical decisions. It is not the government's business. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this dangerous bill. I insert the letter from the California Primary Care Association into the Record. California Primary Care Association, Sacramento, CA, September 17, 2015. Hon. Lois Capps, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congresswoman Capps: The California Primary Care Association has recently become aware of new legislation, H.R. 3134 combined with the Ellmers amendment, by Congresswoman Diane Black that would redirect federal funding from Planned Parenthood to federally qualified health centers. The purported goal of such legislation is to prevent a decrease in federal funding for women's health services, while putting a moratorium on Planned Parenthood as a healthcare provider for a year while Congress conducts a full investigation of the organization's activities. As the state-wide representatives of community clinics and health centers in California, who serve 5.6 million patients annually, we believe this action would negatively impact the health of our community. Planned Parenthood currently operates 115 health centers in California and serves nearly 800,000 patients through 1.5 million encounters annually. Eliminating Planned Parenthood from our state's comprehensive network of care would put untenable stress on remaining health centers. We do not have the capacity for such an increase in care, even for a year, and should Congress seek to extend the moratorium building such capacity would require significant capital investment on par with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act expansion. Even then, the legislation would still eliminate patient's ability to choose the provider with which they feel most comfortable. Planned Parenthood is seen by many as women's health centric, which provides their patients with a level of comfort that cannot be easily replicated. The women's health focus allows them to be a provider of choice to hundreds of thousands of women who seek out a variety of services that include well woman exams, breast exams, birth control and sexually transmitted disease testing. In 2013 alone, Planned Parenthood conducted 733,641 tests for Chlamydia--the leading cause of preventable infertility-- that resulted in 37,014 positive results and follow-up treatment. Planned Parenthood is a vital component of the health care system in California and for that reason, we are opposed to legislation that will diminish their capacity to provide care in our state. We respectfully request that you oppose this legislation. Sincerely, Carmela Castellano Garcia, Esq., President and CEO, California Primary Care Association.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the accomplishments of Taylor Lancaster, my constituent who just completed a cross-country trek to bring attention to the cause of proper labeling of food products containing GMOs. Taylor has devoted the past eight months of his life to traversing 2,700 miles by foot, in order to raise awareness for this important issue. Taylor began his journey on January 5th of this year at the famous Santa Monica Pier. From there, he crossed our country's great deserts, mountains, and plains, to arrive on the banks of the Potomac, here in Washington, D.C. Taylor did not do this alone; he had help along the way. Kind people in diverse communities shared their homes, allied and affiliated organizations shared his story, and his sponsors supported him. Taylor also had the opportunity to meet with like-minded groups, politicians, and schoolchildren to share his message as he crossed the country. Taylor, who is my constituent and a resident of Santa Barbara, California, has been a backpacker for more than 20 years. He has worked on an organic farm and tended to organic gardens and orchards at a monastery. It was during his time at the monastery that he decided to undertake a journey in support of something larger than himself. Like Taylor and the majority of American consumers, I firmly believe consumers have the right to know what is in their food. Part of Taylor's mission is to bring awareness to, and oppose, proposed legislation that would prohibit any mandatory labeling of GMOs. I have consistently voted against this type of legislation and applaud Taylor and his efforts to spread this message he believes in. I am pleased to recognize Taylor's achievements on behalf of consumers' right to know and wish him continued success in his future endeavors.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize September as Children's Cardiomyopathy Awareness Month. Cardiomyopathy is a chronic disease of the heart muscle that increases the risk of sudden cardiac arrest, which is a condition that claims approximately 295,000 lives in the United States every year. It is also the leading cause of death among schoolchildren. That is one reason I introduced the SAFE PLAY Act, which would improve the health and safety of student athletes, including those who are diagnosed with cardiomyopathy. We know that, when sudden cardiac arrest hits, quick intervention saves lives. That is why the SAFE PLAY Act includes provisions to teach students across the country the life-saving skills of CPR and how to use AEDs. As we recognize Children's Cardiomyopathy Awareness Month, I want to invite my colleagues and their staffs to the second annual AED Hunt on the Hill, taking place tomorrow at 4 p.m. in the afternoon. There you can learn more about cardiomyopathy, how AEDs save lives, and how the SAFE PLAY Act can help. Together, we can make a difference.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the P5+1 nuclear agreement with Iran, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Like my vote against the Iraq war, this decision is one of the most important foreign policy votes I will take during my time in Congress. The intent of sanctions and negotiations has always been to diplomatically cut off Iran's pathways to a nuclear weapon and to verifiably increase the transparency of their nuclear activities. It is clear to me, as well as to numerous nuclear, diplomatic, and national security experts around the globe, that this agreement achieves these critical goals. It not only cuts off all pathways to a nuclear weapon, but it also imposes unprecedented and permanent inspections, and it ensures we can automatically reinstate international sanctions if Iran violates the agreement. In contrast, defeating this deal would allow Iran to resume its nuclear program with no restrictions or oversight, increasing the likelihood of military conflict and a regional nuclear weapons race-- precisely the scenario sanctions were designed to prevent. Another costly war in the Middle East would put American lives at risk and undermine the security of our Nation and our allies, including Israel. While the risks of a nuclear-armed Iran are unquestionably dire, there is simply no scenario in which these risks are reduced by rejecting this deal. There are no decisions I take more seriously than those that involve potentially sending American troops into harm's way. This is, undeniably, one of those decisions. Under this agreement, every option is and will remain on the table, including that of military force; but we have a solemn obligation to ensure that every diplomatic avenue is exhausted before military action is taken. That is why I opposed authorizing the Iraq war and why I support this nuclear deal with Iran. This deal has certainly not been perfect, but perfect is not and never has been an option. Those who are urging the defeat of this deal have a responsibility to propose a viable alternative, yet no such alternative has been put forward. This agreement before us is the best path available. It has my full support.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, like my vote against the Iraq War, consideration of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is one of the most consequential foreign policy votes I will take during my time in Congress. After careful consideration I have decided to support the JCPOA because it is the best way forward to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and advance the national security interests of the United States and our allies. The intent of sanctions and these negotiations has always been to diplomatically cut off Iran's pathways to a nuclear weapon and to verifiably increase transparency of their nuclear activities. After reviewing the agreement and its classified documents, participating in classified briefings with Secretaries Kerry, Moniz, and Lew, and listening to the insights of experts on all sides, it is clear that this deal achieves these goals. The JCPOA will ensure that Iran will not have the materials or capability to build a nuclear weapon and extends the breakout time for building a nuclear bomb from two or three months as it currently stands to at least a year. And if Iran violates the agreement, unprecedented international inspections will ensure we know about it and can automatically reinstate international sanctions. In contrast, blocking this deal would allow Iran to resume its nuclear program with no restrictions or oversight, increasing the likelihood of military conflict and a regional nuclear weapons race-- precisely the scenario sanctions were designed to prevent. Another costly war in the Middle East would put American lives at risk and undermine the security of our nation and our allies, including Israel. There are no decisions I take more seriously than those that involve potentially sending Americans into harm's way. This is undeniably one of those decisions. Under the JCPOA, every option is--and will remain--on the table, including military force. But as a Member of Congress I have a solemn obligation to ensure every diplomatic avenue is exhausted before military action is taken. That is why I opposed authorizing the Iraq War and why I support the JCPOA. This is a pivotal moment. We must certainly remain vigilant in the years and decades to come to ensure the deal is strictly enforced and that Iran upholds its end of the bargain, but the terms of this agreement are strong, verifiable, and long-lasting. The JCPOA is certainly not perfect, but perfect is not an option. Those who are urging the defeat of this deal have a responsibility to propose a viable alternative--yet no such alternative has been put forward. While the risks of a nuclear armed Iran are unquestionably dire, there is simply no scenario in which these risks are reduced by rejecting this deal This agreement is the best option available and it has my full support.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1344, the Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Act, which I was so pleased to coauthor with my colleague from Kentucky, Congressman Brett Guthrie. Hearing loss in newborns is considered an invisible disability. Almost 3 out of every 1,000 children in the United States are born deaf or hard of hearing, and even more children lose their hearing later on during childhood. When hearing loss is left undetected, it can impede speech, language, and cognitive development; but we know that, when hearing loss is caught early, children have much better outcomes. In fact, early intervention can help children overcome hearing issues and get them ready to learn on par with their peers. That is exactly what the Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Act does, pronounced ``Eddie.'' As it is commonly called, EHDI has helped families in all 50 States and the District of Columbia identify children in need of care early when interventions are most effective. By all accounts, this program has worked. Since the implementation of the EHDI program 15 years ago, we have seen a tremendous increase in the number of newborns who are being screened for hearing loss. Back in 2000, when we first set up the EHDI program, only 44 percent of newborns in the country were being screened for hearing loss. Now we are screening newborns at a rate of over 96 percent. This is a remarkable achievement, but our work is not done. While it is important that all babies are screened for hearing loss, it is just as important that those babies who do not pass this screening receive a diagnostic evaluation and be connected to early intervention programs. Unfortunately, according to the Centers for Disease Control, 36 percent of newborns who fail their initial hearing screenings are not receiving appropriate followup care. This reauthorization effort will focus on those children, helping to bridge the gap between screening and intervention. My background is as a school nurse for over 20 years, and I have worked with so many students who were lagging behind their classmates due to undiagnosed or untreated hearing loss.

Mrs. CAPPS. These children did not need to suffer. We can and must help them succeed through stronger investments in followup and interventions, such as sign language training, hearing aids, and speech-language development. Early identification and intervention are both keys to a child's well-being. Our legislation would ensure that these programs are there for the children who need them. A vote for this bill is a vote to keep this program strong. I urge my colleagues to support our bipartisan bill.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my constituent, a member of our greatest generation from Santa Maria, California, James T. Murphy. On Sunday, July 19th, 2015, at the age of 94, Mr. Murphy had the historic honor of being offered the first Japanese corporate apology for his forced labor as an American prisoner of war (POW) in Japan during World War II. During World War II, Mitsubishi Mining Company Ltd. used the labor of over 900 Americans in four of its coal and copper mines on mainland Japan. Mr. Murphy, one of the last surviving American former POWs to have worked as a slave laborer in one of these mines, graciously accepted an apology from the Mitsubishi Materials Corporation, the successor of Mitsubishi Mining Company, on behalf of his fellow veterans. A Texas native, Mr. Murphy fought in the Philippines with the U.S. Army Air Corps beginning with the bombing of Nichols Field on December 8, 1941 until surrender in Bataan on April 9, 1942. He endured the Bataan Death March and a ``Hell ship'' to Japan. During the war, Imperial Japan assigned over 13,000 Americans to work in corporate mines, factories, and docks to support the war effort. Mr. Murphy was assigned to POW Camp Sendai #6-B and forced to mine copper at Mitsubishi's Osarizawa mine near the town of Hanawa in Sendai, Japan. After liberation, he continued to serve with the then-new U.S. Air Force and retired in 1962 after a 23-year career. Captain Murphy later moved to my district in California, working as a civilian contractor with Lockheed Missile & Space Company at Vandenberg Air Force Base and finally retiring in 1986 to Santa Maria. On July 19th 2015 Mr. Hikaru Kimura, a Senior Corporate Executive of Mitsubishi Materials Corporation and Senior General Manager of Global Business Management at the Paint Finishing System Division of Taikisha Ltd, delivered to him the official apology at a ceremony held at the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles. Mr. Murphy responded, ``it is a glorious day.'' He continued, ``For 70 years, we wanted such action. Today we have it so I'm elated over that, and I hope this historical occasion just spreads out through the world and helps mankind.'' And it is with grateful recognition for all our veterans swept up in the Pacific battles of the first months of World War II, many of whom became POWs of Imperial Japan, that I insert both Mitsubishi Materials' historic apology statement and Captain Murphy's acceptance. Remembering the stories of these POWs both in Japan and in the United States is important for history, for the U.S.-Japan relationship, and for all those who care about peace. STATEMENT OF JAMES T. MURPHY, In RESPONSE TO MITSUBISHI APOLOGY TO WWII POWS, Delivered at the Museum of Tolerance, Simon Wiesenthal Center-- Los Angeles, CA, July 19, 2015 This is a great day to be here at the Museum of Tolerance because at this place and at this time, history will truly be made. We have just heard Mitsubishi's [Materials Corporation] representative, Mr. [Hikaru] Kimura, present a stirring, heartfelt, warm and sincere apology to former U.S. Prisoners of War who were forced to work for Mitsubishi Mining during World War II. His apology meets all the criteria necessary to satisfy the elements of an acceptable apology. It admits to wrongdoing, it makes sincere statements showing a deep remorse for the wrongdoing and it assures that the wrongdoing will not recur. As a former Prisoner of War of the Japanese Imperial Armed Forces who was forced to work at the Mitsubishi [Osarizawa] copper mine near Hanawa, Japan during part of 1944 and part of 1945 and being one of the few surviving workers of that time, I find it to be my duty and responsibility to accept Mr. Kimura's apology! Hopefully, the acceptance of this sincere apology will bring some closure and relief to the age-old problems confronting the surviving former Prisoners of War and to their family members. Additionally, even though the Japanese people and the American people have a long-standing friendly relationship, the action that we are taking today will further enhance, expand and assure an enduring trust and friendship benefitting both nations. Furthermore, I join others in this group who foster the idea of encouraging the dozens of other Japanese companies who used forced labor by the Allied Prisoners of War to offset their workforce shortage to follow Mitsubishi Materials' progressive leadership. Solving this long overdue problem would permit the companies and their former laborers to look forward to a better future rather than continue to look backward to their differences. Such actions would have positive results for both of our nations by strengthening our trust, confidence and friendship. Perhaps other nations with similar problems will follow our example here today with similar actions. Such actions would result in the betterment to all mankind. Mr. Kimura, we thank you and the other members of your team for your hard work and long hours spent formulating and presenting Mitsubishi Materials' apology. Statement by Mitsubishi Materials Corporation, Senior Executive Officer Hikaru Kimura in the Meeting With a Former American POW and Families of Former POWs Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, speaking on behalf of Mitsubishi Materials, thank you very much for this opportunity to meet with you today at the Museum of Tolerance. Mitsubishi Mining Company Limited, the predecessor of Mitsubishi Materials, was engaged in coal and metal mining during World War II. As the war intensified, prisoners of war were placed in a wide range of industries to offset labor shortages. As part of this, close to 900 American POWs were allocated to four mines operated by Mitsubishi Mining in Japan. I joined Mitsubishi Materials as a postwar baby-boomer and have worked in the company for 34 years. I have read the memoirs of Mr. James Murphy, who is present here at this ceremony, and those of other former POWs, as well as records of court trials. Through these accounts, I have learned about the terrible pain that POWs experienced in the mines of Mitsubishi Mining. The POWs, many of whom were suffering from disease and injury, were subjected to hard labor, including during freezing winters, working without sufficient food, water, medical treatment or sanitation. When we think of their harsh lives in the mines, we cannot help feeling deep remorse. I would like to express our deepest sense of ethical responsibility for the tragic experiences of all U.S. POWs, including Mr. James Murphy, who were forced to work under harsh conditions in the mines of the former Mitsubishi Mining. On behalf of Mitsubishi Materials. I offer our sincerest apology. I also extend our deepest condolence to their fellow U.S. POWs who worked alongside them but have since passed away. To the bereaved families who are present at this ceremony, I also offer our most remorseful apology. This cannot happen again, and of course, Mitsubishi Materials intends to never let this happen again. We now have a clear corporate mission of working for the benefit of all people, all societies and indeed the entire globe. Respecting the basic human rights of all people is a core principle of Mitsubishi Materials, and we will continue to strongly adhere to this principle. Our management team wishes for the health and happiness of our employees every day, and we ask that all of them work not only diligently, but also with a sense of ethics. Mitsubishi Materials supplies general materials that enrich people's lives, from cement to cellphone components and auto parts, all of which are closely related to people's lives. We also place a strong emphasis on recycling for more sustainable societies, such as recovering valuable metals from used electrical appliances and other scrapped materials. Here in the United States, we have plants for cement and ready-mixed concrete, and a sales headquarters for our advanced materials and tools business, all in California, as well as a polysilicon plant in Alabama. We believe that our company provides fulfilling jobs for local employees and contributes to host communities through its business. The American Defenders of Bataan & Corregidor Museum in Wellsburg, West Virginia archives extensive records and memorabilia of POWs. These records and memorabilia will be handed down to future generations for educational purposes. I will visit the museum the day after tomorrow to view the exhibits and visualize how POWs were forced to work under harsh conditions. For now, however, I am pleased to announce that Mitsubishi Materials has donated 50,000 US dollars to the museum to support its activities. Finally, I sincerely thank Ms. Kinue Tokudome and the members of the American Defenders of Bataan & Corregidor Memorial Society for creating this opportunity to meet with you today. I also express my sincere thanks to Rabbi Abraham Cooper for offering the Museum of Tolerance as a venue for the ceremony. And I express my deep gratitude to all others involved in arranging this gathering. I would also like to thank the family members of a non-U.S. POW [Mr. Stanley Gibson from Scotland, whose father also was a slave laborer in the Mitsubishi Osarizawa mine] who have come from very far away to attend this ceremony. I truly hope that this gathering marks the starting point of a new relationship between former POWs and Mitsubishi Materials. Thank you very much.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to honor the life of Gwendolyn DeBard Strong, who passed away this past Saturday after a heroic, inspiring battle with spinal muscular atrophy. Simply put, she is our hero. Gwendolyn died a few months short of her eighth birthday, far exceeding the odds that were given to her at birth. In her short life, she had more of an impact and brought more joy to others than many ever could in their lifetime. Gwendolyn's life was spent on the same things many young girls do-- playing princesses with friends, going to school, and spending time with her sister. She and her family also used their voice to improve the lives of all of us. The Strongs worked hard to end lifetime and annual caps on insurance coverage, improve spinal muscular atrophy research, and promote innovations to make the lives of other children with debilitating diseases a little easier. She and her incredible family taught those of us in Santa Barbara and around the country that we should never give up. Thanks to her bravery and the efforts of Bill and Victoria, we never will. I am honored to have known her and take solace in knowing that her efforts will continue to help so many others. We miss you, Gwendolyn, but want you to know we will never give up.

Mrs. CAPPS

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

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple and straightforward. It would ensure that oil and gas pipeline safety rules and pipeline spill prevention or mitigation rules are not considered ``major rules'' under this bill. By design, the REINS Act would likely delay or stop virtually all future Federal rulemaking. We could spend hours listening to some of the countless health and safety problems that this bill would cause. I commend my colleagues for raising some of these issues in the other amendments that are being offered today and debated. My amendment focuses on protecting oil and gas pipeline safety and spill mitigation rules from the needless and costly delays imposed by this bill. These rules are particularly important to me and to my constituents in the wake of the recent oil spill in my district. On May 19, line 901 of the Plains All American pipeline ruptured just north of Santa Barbara, California; and it spewed over 100,000 gallons of crude oil onto Refugio State Beach and the surrounding areas. At least 20,000 gallons of the oil spilled into the Pacific Ocean and spread along nearly 100 miles of pristine California coastline, devastating local wildlife, covering our beaches in thick tar, and closing valuable fisheries. One of the other tragedies of this spill is that it likely could have been prevented--or at least minimized--if the pipeline had been using state-of-the-art automatic shutoff and leak detection technologies. These systems are available and are already in use in other pipelines in the area, but this pipeline does not have these technologies because its Federal regulator--the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, or PHMSA--currently does not require the use of these safety systems. Like many communities across the country, the central coast of California, which I represent, has called for action. The good news is that Congress, on a bipartisan basis, has listened and has demanded action to improve pipeline safety rules. In 2011, we came together and unanimously passed the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act, which required PHMSA to issue 42 new pipeline safety standards; yet, 4 years later, PHMSA has yet to complete 16 of these requirements, including the rules to strengthen standards on automatic shutoff and leak detection systems. This unacceptable delay has not been lost on this Congress. Just 2 weeks ago, we held a bipartisan hearing in the Energy and Commerce Committee on the long overdue implementation of these pipeline safety standards. Both Republicans and Democrats chided PHMSA for dragging its feet because we all agree that these rules are long overdue and must be completed as soon as possible. It is baffling now that, just 2 weeks after this bipartisan hearing, we find ourselves considering a bill that would delay these pipeline rules even further. Let's be clear. That is exactly what the REINS Act would do. My amendment would protect these important safety standards from the added layers of bureaucracy that the REINS Act would impose. I hope that my colleagues will join me again today, as they did 2 weeks ago, in working to ensure that PHMSA is not further delayed in fulfilling its obligations. They can do this by voting for this amendment, which would simply ensure oil and gas pipeline safety rules are not considered ``major rules'' under the REINS Act. It would not exempt these rules from the main reporting requirements, but it would minimize the additional delays created by the bill. If this bill were to become law as written, PHMSA's pipeline safety rules would not take effect until both the House and the Senate affirmatively voted to approve them, but both the House and the Senate already voted unanimously in 2011 to require PHMSA to write these rules. Going around and around in circles makes no sense. Mr. Chairman, supporters of this bill claim that the REINS Act is all about more efficient and effective government. How is it more efficient or effective to require Congress to reconsider and reapprove rules that it has already voted unanimously to establish? The simple truth is that the REINS Act is not about efficient or effective government. It is a partisan gimmick that will do nothing but gum up the works and needlessly delay important health and safety rules that our constituents depend on. My amendment won't make this a good bill--and I intend to oppose its final passage--but my amendment would at least help to ensure that the REINS Act does not delay oil and gas pipeline safety standards any more than they already have been. This is something which, I hope, we can all agree on; so I urge my colleagues to stop the delays and support my amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, as I stated earlier, this amendment is straightforward and common sense. There is broad, bipartisan agreement that stronger oil and gas pipeline safety standards are long overdue. I hope there is similar agreement that further delaying these safety rules puts communities like mine in California and hundreds of communities across the country at risk. My amendment would simply ensure that these safety rules are not subject to the needless, burdensome delays created by the REINS Act. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, in 2004, Raechel and Jacqueline Houck were tragically killed in California when their rented Chrysler PT Cruiser crashed and caught fire due to a safety defect that was under recall. A glaring safety gap in current law allows recalled cars to be rented without being repaired, which is why I have introduced H.R. 2198, the Raechel and Jacqueline Houck Safe Rental Car Act, so as to close this gap and prohibit the renting of vehicles that are subject to safety recalls. The bill is supported by all major car rental companies and consumer safety groups as well as by General Motors and Honda, yet Chrysler and Ford continue to oppose this bill for unclear reasons. Chrysler's opposition is particularly troubling considering this week's announcement that NHTSA is imposing a record $105 million fine and vehicle buyback requirement on Chrysler for its failure to adequately fix recalled vehicles or to notify vehicle owners in a timely manner. While H.R. 2198 wouldn't solve all of Chrysler's recall problems, it would at least ensure that American families who rent Chryslers this summer will know they are safe. This is a commonsense idea. I hope Chrysler voices its support for the bill and helps me bring it to the House floor soon for a vote.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1599. This misguided legislation would limit consumers' access to information about the food they eat by preempting State laws and codifying the current failed system. I want to be clear. This is not a debate about whether or not genetically-engineered foods are safe. It is a debate about whether or not consumers have a right to know what is in their food is the point I hope we can all agree upon. Unfortunately, consumers currently do not have access to the information they are looking for when it comes to genetically engineered foods. Current labeling standards are so ineffective that consumers are often confused by the information that they do find. Consumers should be able to trust that the labeling on food is both accurate and truthful. Consumers should not be confused about something as basic and fundamental as the food they eat, but rather than fix this problem, H.R. 1599 simply perpetuates the status quo of confusion. The food industry claims the current voluntary system is adequate and consumers do have information they need; yet despite the fact that there are great numbers of genetically engineered foods on the market, very few of them have been labeled as such. Our constituents want to know how their food is made, and they are calling on us to help make this information more accessible, but instead of responding to this call, this flawed legislation ignores the problem and makes it even harder to require labeling in the future. It removes FDA's authority to craft a national labeling solution yet also prevents States from acting on their own. Simply put, this bill prioritizes profits over consumer choice and keeps consumers in the dark. That is why I strongly oppose this bill, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no.''

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2713, the title VIII Nursing Workforce Reauthorization Act, a bipartisan bill that I authored with my Nursing Caucus co-chair David Joyce. When President Johnson first signed these programs into law, he observed that the Nurse Training Act of 1964 was the most important nursing legislation in our Nation's history. And, indeed, it has been. Over the past 50 years, title VIII programs have bolstered nursing education at all levels, from entry-level preparation through graduate study, not only supplying our Nation with needed healthcare providers, but also strengthening the nursing education pipeline to train the nurses of tomorrow. These programs are targeted to address specific needs within the nursing population, nursing workforce, and America's patient population. Simply put, title VIII nursing workforce programs are a direct investment in our Nation's health. The Nursing Workforce Reauthorization Act of 2015 is a bipartisan effort to simply ensure that these critical programs are available for years to come. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to cosponsor H.R. 2713.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak on behalf of H.R. 6, the 21st Century Cures Act, and I salute the bipartisan authors of this bill. I am a cosponsor of this legislation. I am proud of the many hours of work that members of the Energy and Commerce Committee have put in to find common ground. This is a real achievement. 21st Century Cures is a good bill. It has come a long way, but I lend my support with some reservations. Despite bipartisan agreement in committee to provide robust funding for the research initiatives and policies in this bill, the bill before us shorts the NIH by over $1 billion, and these funds are the very ones that are critical for cures. It is important that we provide the necessary support that the NIH requires to continue to be the gold standard in research and development. While we all agree that it is important to speed up research and clinical trials to get treatments to those in need, I want to reiterate my concerns that this focus on speed should not undercut the work that so many have done for years, including many of us here in Congress, to improve diversity in research and clinical trials. While this bill does include my provision to encourage the inclusion of children and the elderly in clinical trials, more needs to be done to ensure that women and minorities are included as well. This is an effort I led during the FDA reauthorization, and it is one that must not be undercut by the Cures effort. Finally, I must express my disappointment that once again the House majority has decided to add language to the bill that politicizes the bipartisan effort and attacks women's personal decisionmaking. It is a distraction from the important work that we are trying to do here, and I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the amendment to strip it. The 21st Century Cures initiative is such an important bipartisan effort to strengthen our medical research and treatment development. It could be stronger, and I stand willing to work with my colleagues to do just that.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as well in strong opposition to H.R. 5, the so-called Student Success Act. There should be no question that education in this country is a right, not a privilege. Every student deserves the opportunity to succeed, and that opportunity begins with equal access to high-quality education. But this bill severely undercuts our public schools. It slashes funding and takes away critical resources from students with the greatest needs. It eliminates key protections for students with disabilities. It guts support for vital afterschool programs. And on the Central Coast of California, where I am from, our high school graduation rates have continuously improved over the past 5 years, exceeding statewide averages. We must build upon these successes, not turn the clock backwards by dismantling equity and accountability standards. We must instead continue to move forward, deliver the promise of a great education and the opportunity for a bright future. Sadly, this bill only takes away that promise. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 5.

Mrs. CAPPS

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

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, drilling for and transporting oil and gas is a dirty and dangerous business. There is no disputing that. No matter what assurances are given by the oil industry, spills do happen, and they will continue to happen as we depend on fossil fuels for our energy needs. Sadly, my constituents in Santa Barbara, California, are far too familiar with this reality. Just over a month ago, on May 19, over 100,000 gallons of crude oil spilled from the Plains All American pipeline along the Gaviota Coast. The oil spilled down a hill, through a culvert, and into the ocean, eventually spreading thick, black tar along nearly 100 miles of coastline. This was a unique spill, in that it impacted both land and ocean, requiring both the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, as well as the Coast Guard to respond to and lead the cleanup effort. When it comes to oil spills, the damage gets worse by the minute, so ensuring that spill response teams are properly trained and prepared to respond quickly is essential to minimizing the impacts. This is precisely why the EPA has jurisdiction over the inland oil spill program. The EPA uses this funding to prevent, to prepare for, and to respond to oil spills associated with the more than 600,000 oil storage facilities that the Agency regulates. The EPA's oil program also provides oil spill response resources and training for States, localities, and tribal governments. Despite its scope and importance, this program has been seriously underfunded for years, and H.R. 2822 only makes things worse by funding this program at nearly 25 percent less than the President requested. My amendment would simply increase funding for this program by $5.4 million, to match the President's requested amount of $23.4 million for fiscal year 2016. This modest increase in funding would help ensure that EPA can do its job to help protect coastal areas, like the one I represent, from the impacts of oil spills. The funding increase, however, would be offset by reducing the conventional energy account at the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, or BOME, by an equal amount. I want to be clear. This funding reduction for BOME is intended to target the funding used for new offshore oil and gas leasing. BOME will continue to fund safety operations and environmental assessments. The new 5-year offshore oil and gas program being drafted by BOME calls for 14 potential lease sales, including in some new areas off the East Coast. Expanding drilling by cutting funding for oil spill cleanup is incredibly irresponsible. Mr. Chairman, I have spent my entire career in Congress fighting to stop offshore drilling because I firmly believe the risks outweigh the benefits. Perhaps the current majority does not agree with me on this goal. I hope we can at least all agree that we should not be expanding oil drilling unless we are properly preparing for the spills that will inevitably occur. As long as we drill for oil, there will be oil spills, and the economic and ecological risks of these spills only increases when the oil is extracted offshore. While the Coast Guard is responsible for responding to offshore spills, the recent spill in my district shows that offshore drilling can also have onshore impacts, especially for coastal communities like those I represent. The oil that spilled from the Plains All American pipeline was extracted just a few miles offshore in Federal waters. It was then pumped onshore to a holding facility, and it continued through the pipeline that ruptured. This offshore oil spilled from the pipeline, down a hillside, on to the beach, and back into the ocean under which it had been extracted. Drilling and spill cleanup are inextricably linked. The least we can do is ensure that the EPA has the resources it needs to ensure that the spills are quickly and properly cleaned up when they inevitably happen. This is precisely what my amendment seeks to achieve. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I have no additional speakers. I am prepared to close. In closing, I would like to reiterate two points. First, that oil and gas exploration is inherently dangerous, there is no disputing that. Spills do happen. Unfortunately, my district observed these consequences firsthand during the Plains pipeline spill just over a month ago. Second, if we are going to continue to extract, to transport, and to utilize oil, we need to be prepared for the inevitability of these spills. The EPA's inland oil spill program is intended for just this purpose, to be prepared to respond to the inevitable. It is irresponsible to develop new oil extraction, including offshore, without being prepared to respond to its risk. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.