Lois Capps

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to pay tribute to an extraordinary citizen of the Santa Barbara community, Mr. James Marshall Stanley. On August 1, 2003, Jim Stanley passed away in Santa Barbara, California. His years of service and dedication leave a great legacy among many individuals and organizations in this community and beyond. James Marshall Stanley was born on April 2, 1907 in Oregon, graduated from high school in Portland, Oregon and went on to graduate from Portland Engineering School in 1927. Jim married in 1930 and moved with his wife's family to Santa Barbara in 1931. During World War II, Mr. Stanley worked at a San Pedro shipbuilding yard and in 1943 joined the Merchant Marines as a Chief Radio Operator. He took part in numerous convoys during the War, supplying cargo, ammunitions and oil on board US Liberty and Victory ships. On August 15, 1945, James M. Stanley was honorably discharged from the Armed Forces of the United States and in 1949 was discharged from the US Merchant Marines. As a WWII hero, James M. Stanley was honored by the American, British, Russian and Finnish Governments for his participation in the fight against Nazism. Following the War, James returned to his family in Santa Barbara where he owned and operated many small businesses before his retirement in 1972. Jim Stanley was a member of SCORE and worked as a Regional Director for Region IX of the U.S. Small Business Administration as well as worked as an advocate for the Los Angeles District of the Veterans Administration. In addition to service to his country, service to his local community through volunteerism was an important part of Jim Stanley's life. Mr. Stanley was very active in the International Lions Club, which he joined in 1957. Not only was James Stanley the permanent President of the Tri-Counties Lions Sight and Hearing Center at St. Francis Medical Center for over 30 years, but also served as the International President of Lions Sight and Hearing Centers. Following his passion of providing sight to those less fortunate, Mr. Stanley helped found the non-profit S.E.E International, which organizes surgical eye expeditions and provides free services to the people of developing countries suffering from curable eye diseases. For his service in these areas, James Stanley was awarded a ``Golden Apple'' award in 1991 and a ``Golden Oak Leaf' award in 1998 by the Santa Barbara County School District. In addition to his strong dedication to the Lions organization and S.E.E. International, Jim Stanley was a member of the US Navy League and the North Russia Club (which unites the veterans from the North Atlantic convoys from various countries). Mr. Stanley also supported such organizations as UNICEF, the International Red Cross, Paralyzed Veterans of America, SS Lane Victory Project, the Wilcox-Douglas Family Preservation Project and the SBCC Choir. James Marshall Stanley was a person of great honor, serving his local community, his country, and truly touching the whole world. Through the years that I have known Jim Stanley I not only consider him a community hero, but a friend. His service and dedication has been appreciated by many throughout the world over the years and we will honor his memory for many years into the future.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I understand that the majority has agreed to accept this amendment, and I am very grateful. Briefly, I would state that the amendment would increase Federal efforts to clean up leaking underground storage tanks by $7.3 million. The amendment pays for this increase by transferring the same amount from the EPA's Science and Technology account. The hope is that we can increase our attention to the problem that MTBE contamination is causing to drinking water across this country. When MTBE gets into groundwater, even at very low levels, it makes water smell and taste like turpentine. This contamination has resulted in closing important drinking water supplies all over the country. To be sure, owners and operators of underground tanks are responsible for cleanup, and that is where this responsibility should lie, but the Federal Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund provides additional cleanup resources, enforces corrective action and steps in when responsible parties cannot be found. The LUST fund has a $2.2 billion balance. The bill before us, the underlying bill, only appropriates $73 million of that amount to support cleanup efforts for leaking tanks, and I think we can do better than that. My amendment today is only a small step toward addressing those cleanup needs. Perhaps one day we can take a giant leap. So I urge my colleagues to support this common-sense amendment.

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

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak regarding H.R. 2210, because in these desperate economic times Head Start needs to be strengthened, not weakened.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in support of the bipartisan DeFazio-Bradley amendment to remove the bill's provision extending the recreation fee demonstration program. I rise also in support of the conversation which has just occurred and am happy to follow my California colleague, the Chair of the authorizing committee, first to note that this is not just an Oregon issue. There are thousands of miles of public lands, a lot of that in the western States, which are not national parks, but which are national forests and have multiple access points. In my district on the central coast of California where Los Padres National Forest is in our backyard, few issues have galvanized such opposition as what we have come to call the recreational fee demonstration program known locally as the Adventure Pass. There are many takes on that word by many of my constituents. As the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) has said, this Recreation Fee Demonstration Program was passed into law without hearings in authorizing committees and without public debate. It sounds like it now will get a full hearing within an authorizing committee, which is a good thing. The program should not be blindly extended, however, another 2 years without oversight or debate. I support full funding, as all of us do, for our national parks and recreation areas. I recognize there is a serious backlog of maintenance and recreation needs on our Nation's public lands, and a lot of that exists within these beautiful forests on the central coast of California. The mismanagement of the program by the Forest Service as it exists today is staggering. The program was created to address the maintenance backlog on public land facilities, but only 50 cents of every dollar collected goes toward maintaining or improving our public lands. The rest is eaten up by administrative and collection costs and also litigation costs. Fifty percent overhead costs does not make an effective government program. Let us find more equitable sources for this money. Americans should not be charged twice, our constituents say that over and over again, first through their taxes and then again through these fees to go and have a picnic in their backyard, to take a hike, getting out of their car and see a sunset in our national forests. Big logging companies are receiving subsidies for their activities on these very same lands. Our national forests are natural treasures to be enjoyed today and to be preserved for future generations. I think we can accomplish this goal, but we should end the Adventure Pass misadventure. Let us go back to the drawing board, it sounds like we may be doing that, have hearings on this demonstrations program and conduct a full and open debate. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, today it is my pleasure to join with my colleagues in strong support of this critical amendment to increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities; and I thank my colleagues, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), for their leadership on this amendment to the Interior appropriations bill. The arts are our cultural language. They bring our communities together. They serve to define who we are as a people, as a society, and they help us to link with other communities around the world our cultural heritages and our vast resources of our diversity. Both the NEA and the NEH broaden public access to the arts and the humanities for all Americans. They improve the quality of our lives, those of ourselves and our children and our families. I have spent a good deal of my career in our public schools. I have seen firsthand the positive impacts that arts have in our children's education. The arts teach our children rhythm, design, creativity and critical thinking skills. The arts have also been shown to deter delinquent behavior of at-risk youth, to help dramatically improve the academic performance, truancy rates and other critical skills, crucial skills, among our young people. Today's economy demands a workforce that can think and work innovatively. Arts education provides a crucial part of those skills, skills that are not learned in academics of other kinds, in college, but in the child's elementary school class trip to the museum, art projects, experience with musical instruments and all of the vast array of art opportunities. In my district on the central coast of California, students have been exposed to the virtues of music, art, poetry and dance as a result of NEA and NEH support through a grant, for example, to Art Resources Transfer in New York. The Distribution to Underserved Communities program places books on art and culture into public schools and libraries free of charge. To help rebuild collections diminished from budget cuts, local librarians choose from a long list of available books, videos and interactive materials. The Laguna Middle School Library in San Luis Obispo receives materials from this program, and they are grateful for them. A grant to the University of California at Santa Barbara supports a partnership project of artist-led activities that provides positive alternatives for youth. I have seen our young college students interact with our elementary students in Santa Barbara, and it is a wonderful sight to behold. Through a partnership with the American Architectural Foundation in Washington, D.C., the Mayor's Institute on City Design hosts a series of symposiums attended by mayors, urban designers and developers. The Institute is designed to provide mayors with new perspectives on creative solutions to design issues in their communities. The mayor, Marty Blum of Santa Barbara, participates in this program. Finally, through a grant to California-based L.A. Theatre Works, audio plays that serve the visually impaired are distributed to libraries throughout the country. L.A. Theatre Works records in front of live studio audiences and features classic and contemporary works, for example, Arthur Miller's The Crucible and Zoot Suit by Luis Valdez. L.A. Theatre Works distributes these audio recordings to the Buena High School in Ventura, California. These examples illustrate to me and to my constituents the value of the dollars we appropriate here that are multiplied as they are extended into partnerships throughout our country. I urge my colleagues to vote for our children, to support the Slaughter-Shays-Dicks-Leach amendment to strengthen both the NEA and the NEH. I will include a document about the arts programs in my district at this point in the Record. Congressional District 22 A partnership grant to the California Arts Council in Sacramento supports statewide programming in arts education, cultural development, artistic preservation, increased access to the arts in underserved areas, and funding for artists and arts organizations throughout the state. new cuyama Through a grant to Art Resources Transfer in New York, the Distribution to Underserved Communities program places books on art and culture into public and school libraries free of charge. To help rebuild collections diminished from budget cuts, local librarians choose from a long list of available books, videos and interactive materials. The Cuyama Valley High School Library in New Cuyama receives materials from this program. san luis obispo Through a grant to the Group I Acting Company in New York City, a touring production of Mark Twain's comedy Pudd'nhead Wilson is performed at the Performing Arts Center in San Luis Obispo. In partnership with regional arts organizations, the NEA Regional Touring Program (RTP) support high-quality performances and related educational activities in communities across the country. As part of this program, Elizabeth Streb and Company perform contemporary dance at California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo. Through a grant to Art Resources Transfer in New York, the Distribution to Underserved Communities program places books on art and culture into public and school libraries free of charge. To help rebuild collections diminished from budget cuts, local librarians choose from a long list of available books, videos and interactive materials. The Laguna Middle School Library in San Luis Obispo receives materials from this program. santa barbara A grant to the University of California at Santa Barbara supports the post-production phase of Mary Anthony: A Life in Modern Dance. A grant to the University of California at Santa Barbara supports a partnership project of artist-led activities that provides positive alternatives for youth. Through a grant to the Herbert F. Johnson Museum of Art at Cornell University, the touring exhibition Byrdcliffe: An American Arts and Crafts Colony celebrates the centennial of Byrdcliffe, a colony founded as a center for artists and craftsmen in Woodstock, NY, in 1902. The exhibition travels to the Santa Barbara Museum of Art. Through a grant to New York's Orpheus Chamber Orchestra, the orchestra tours with guest artists Dawn Upshaw and Richard Goode to national venues such as the Arlington Theatre in Santa Barbara. Through a grant to the Group I Acting Company in New York City, a touring production of Mark Twain's comedy Pudd'nhead Wilson is performed at Campbell Hall at the University of California in Santa Barbara. Through a grant to California-based L.A. Theatre Works, audio plays that serve the visually impaired are distributed to libraries throughout the country. L.A. Theatre Works records in front of live studio audiences and features classic and contemporary works (e.g., Arthur Miller's The Crucible and Zoot Suit by Luis Valdez). L.A. Theatre Works distributes these audio recordings to the Eastside Branch Library in Santa Barbara. In partnership with regional arts organizations, the NEA Regional Touring Program (RTP) supports high-quality performances and related educational activities in communities across the country. As part of this program, Anoushka Shankar performs Indian sitar music at University of California in Santa Barbara. Through a grant to the New England Foundation for the Arts in Boston, the National Dance Project supports touring performances of contemporary dance. As part of this project, the Bill T. Jones/Arnie Zane Dance Company and the Orion String Quartet perform at University of California in Santa Barbara. Through a grant to New York's Meet the Composer for its Commissioning Music/USA program, composer Miles Green and choreographer Elizabeth Streb present their new work Ripped at the University of California in Santa Barbara. Through a grant to Ballet Hispanico of New York, the company travels on a nationwide tour. Known as the foremost dance interpreter of Latino culture in the United States, Ballet Hispanico's innovative repertory blends ballet and ethnic dance forms into a spirited image of contemporary Hispanic-American culture. The company's tour includes performances at the University of California in Santa Barbara. Through a grant to L.A. Freewaves in Los Angeles, the experimental media arts festival Appropriate/Appropriated showcases artists working in the medium of film, video, web sites, and multimedia installations. Films screen for the general public in galleries, museums and other venues across Southern California, including the Contemporary Arts Forum in Santa Barbara. Through a partnership with the American Architectural Foundation in Washington, D.C., the Mayor's Institute on City Design hosts a series of symposiums attended by mayors, urban designers, and developers. The Institute is designed to provide mayors with new perspectives on creative solutions to design issues in their communities. Marty Blum, Mayor of Santa Barbara, participates in this program. Congressional District 23 A partnership grant to the California Arts Council in Sacramento supports statewide programming in arts education, cultural development, artistic preservation, increased access to the arts in underserved areas, and funding for artists and arts organizations throughout the state. Camarillo Through a grant to California-based L.A. Theatre Works, audio plays that serve the visually impaired are distributed to libraries throughout the country. L.A. Theatre Works records in front of live studio audiences and features classic and contemporary works (e.g., Arthur Miller's The Crucible and Zoot Suit by Luis Valdez). L.A. Theatre Works distributes these audio recordings to the Frontier High School in Camarillo. Through a grant to Ririe-Woodbury Dance in Salt Lake City, the company offers creative movement classes, performance demonstrations and teacher workshops at Camarillo High School. In partnership with regional arts organizations, the NEA Regional Touring Program (RTP) supports high-quality performances and related educational activities in communities across the country. In Camarillo, the Ventura County Superintendent of Schools presents the Footworks Percussive Dance Company and the Ririe-Woodbury Dance Company. coalinga Through a grant to Art Resources Transfer in New York, the Distribution to Underserved Communities program places books on art and culture into public and school libraries free of charge. To help rebuild collections diminished from budget cuts, local librarians choose from a long list of available books, videos and interactive materials. The Coalinga District Library receives materials from this program. malibu Through a grant to Inside Out Community Arts in Venice, the School Project program is an after-school theater-based arts program serving middle and high school students. Students participating in the program attend a camping/rehearsal retreat at Grindling Hilltop Camp in Malibu. ojai A grant to the Ojai Festival supports the 2002 Ojai Music Festival and the theme Last Thoughts: Beethoven, Shostakovich and Others. In partnership with regional arts organizations, the NEA Regional Touring Program (RTP) supports high-quality performances and related educational activities in communities across the country. In Ojai, Performances To Grow On presents the Princely Players, who sing and recite poetry from the earliest sources of African-American music in this country to the civil war and the civil rights movement. simi valley Through a grant to Jazz at Lincoln Center in New York City, the Essentially Ellington High School Jazz Band Competition and Festival distributes, free of charge, specially arranged compositions of Duke Ellington's music and related educational materials to schools throughout the country, including Santa Susana High School in Simi Valley. Through a grant to California-based L.A. Theatre Works, audio plays that serve the visually impaired are distributed to libraries throughout the country. L.A. Theatre Works records in front of live studio audiences and features classic and contemporary works (e.g., Arthur Miller's The Crucible and Zoot Suit by Luis Valdez). L.A. Theatre Works distributes these audio recordings to the Santa Susana High School in Simi Valley. ventura Through a grant to California-based L.A. Theatre Works, audio plays that serve the visually impaired are distributed to libraries throughout the country. L.A. Theatre Works records in front of live studio audiences and features classic and contemporary works (e.g., Arthur Miller's The Crucible and Zoot Suit by Luis Valdez). L.A. Theatre Works distributes these audio recordings to the Buena High School in Ventura. Through a grant to Art Resources Transfer in New York, the Distribution to Underserved Communities program places books on art and culture into public and school libraries free of charge. To help rebuild collections diminished from budget cuts, local librarians choose from a long list of available books, videos and interactive materials. The Ventura County Library receives materials from this program.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Chairman, I urge this House to reject the Smith amendment. Slashing our contribution to the United Nations Population Fund would sacrifice the health and safety of some of the poorest women and children around the world. This program provides critical maternal health, emergency assistance for refugees, reproduction education, prevention and treatment for HIV and AIDS, and critical care for infants and children. I saw with my own eyes recently in South Africa that this program is the only health care that many families receive. This Congress should know that each year we hold our funding hostage to the divisive politics we cost impoverished women and children their lives. Defeating this amendment is essential for child survival and AIDS prevention. Millions of orphans around the world are pleading with us.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us has many shortfalls that are being detailed today. Underlying many of them is the need for funding for nurse education programs. We are in the midst in this Nation of a growing nurse shortage. The nursing workforce is aging and approaching retirement. Fewer and fewer nurses are coming into the field. Today we are currently short 126,000 nurses. The demand for nurses will increase by more than 25 percent over the next 7 years; and according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we will need 1 million more nurses by 2010 to meet the needs of this country. To make matters worse, these shortages will peak just as the baby boom generation begins to retire. The shortage is already complicating the deliver of everyday health care. As health care professionals can tell us, dealing with the nursing shortage is about ensuring quality patient care. The joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations has studied the link between staffing shortages and increased medical errors and found that one quarter of all unexpected deaths and injuries caused by hospitals can be linked to the lack of nurses. The nursing shortage is hampering our homeland security preparedness efforts. Who is going to administer smallpox vaccines or other bioterrorism treatments if we do not have enough nurses? Last year the Congress recognized this threat to health care and preparedness in our country. We have passed the new nurse reinvestment act to recruit and train nurses and keep current nurses on the job. But the bill before us fails the commitment we made just last year to address the nursing shortage. It offers no increase for funding as this baby boom generation approaches retirement, no way to deal with shortages in this bill. The nursing funding is already so low compared to other health care priorities that it should not be cut at all. In fact, in 1974 during the last serious nursing shortage, funding for nurse education programs was $153 million. In today's dollars that would be worth $533 million, almost five times what we are spending now. We can afford to make a modest increase in this underlying bill to address today's shortage. We must do this. If we miss this opportunity to make an investment in our health infrastructure and our homeland security efforts, we will be reaping the consequences of yet another reason we should not have voted for that huge tax cut. And I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. Let us start over again and address the nurse shortage.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. As cochair of the Biomedical Research Caucus, the House Cancer Caucus, the Heart and Stroke Caucus and as founder of the House Nursing Caucus, I can tell Members that this bill shortchanges the health of the American people. It is inadequate in so many ways, but I want to focus on just one. We are missing a tremendous opportunity to support critical biomedical research that can save lives. Congress last year completed the doubling of the NIH budget after years of underfunding this national institution. This was a tremendous accomplishment supported by Members from all across the political spectrum, but now we are going to begin throwing away the benefits from responsibly funding NIH. It is terrible news for cancer patients, heart disease patients, and others suffering from chronic diseases. I watched my daughter Lisa struggle with lung cancer, pinning her hopes on a clinical trial. For these people to have hope, we need to fund new research, not just to continue existing grants. They need cures and treatments that have not been discovered yet. This bill will not allow new research. Instead, it will severely curtail new research opportunities. An optimistic assessment shows that under this bill, NIH will be only able to provide 21 new grants next year. The 2.5 percent increase in the bill does not match NIH's estimates of inflation in research costs. Cancer patients, heart disease patients, Alzheimer's patients, stroke survivors, Parkinson's patients, ALS, many others are just going to have to wait. This bill defers their hopes of new cures. As many of my colleagues have stated, we are seeing the cost of these tax cuts. The majority will tell us we cannot afford spending for institutions like NIH above the 2.5 percent increase, we cannot afford the benefits of life-saving medical research. The irresponsible tax cuts the majority has rammed through are costing us lives. We should reject this bill and get our priorities straight. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to tell the cancer patients in my district that their research has been blocked. Do you?

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding, and we do share a very strong interest in this issue, and we both also know that oncology services involve more than the oncologist, and, yes, this bill does raise from the terrible low cut that was originally in it some 12 percent; but it still leaves a huge vacuum for the services that are provided by oncology nurses, the whole panoply of outpatient and clinic setting services that patients who are receiving chemotherapy, which is such a devastating treatment to go through, need in order to maintain. It is really a life-and-death situation for people who receive a diagnosis of cancer and then find out that they have to go to the doctor and get their medication, and then they have to find some way to have the services delivered because Medicare will not cover this wide comprehensive care in a cancer center, and that is what we need to have a full debate upon.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this Republican prescription bill because it provides elderly women with nothing more than a false sense of security.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and to the Medicare bill. The rule is unfair. The bill is unacceptable. It provides spotty coverage that will not help seniors with their expensive medications, and it reneges on a promise we have made to America's seniors and those with disabilities by ending Medicare as we have known it. I want to speak about a provision in the bill that still cuts, even with yesterday's revisions, hundreds of millions of dollars for cancer care. A cut like this will be devastating to seniors with cancer. If this bill is passed, cancer centers will close, especially satellite centers that are located close to where seniors live. Those that remain open will admit fewer patients and lay off oncology nurses. Medicare beneficiaries do pay too much for their oncology medications. We all agree that we must fix this, but Medicare also pays way too little for essential oncology services. The overpayments for oncology drugs has been used to pay for treatments oncologists provide to cancer patients. So we must fix both parts of this problem. The bill fixes overpayment of drugs, but still cuts some $300 million from cancer care to do it. The quality of cancer care will suffer. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and I submitted amendments last night to fix both parts of this problem and protect the quality of cancer care for all Americans, but these amendments were not made in order; and now seniors will not only not get sufficient prescription drug coverage but those with cancer, seniors with cancer, will see their treatments jeopardized, thwarted, cut off. What will seniors with cancer do? I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and against this bill.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished ranking member for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the Medicare bill before us is not a good bill. The coverage it provides is unreliable and insufficient. After a senior has used $2,000 in medications, they get no more help until they have spent another $2,900 out of pocket without help and while continuing to pay premiums. And that is only if a private plan chooses to come into their area. This bill turns Medicare into a voucher, handing it over to the insurance companies and forcing seniors to pay more. It reneges on a promise that we have made to America's seniors by ending Medicare as they know it. In addition, the bill before us cuts cancer care by hundreds of millions of dollars, jeopardizing access to cancer care for seniors who face this dreaded diagnosis. If this bill passes, many cancer centers will close. Others will curtail their services, admit fewer patients, and lay off oncology nurses and critical support staff. This bill is supposed to make it easier for patients to get health care, but it will actually make it harder for cancer patients to get the care they need. It is true that Medicare beneficiaries are paying too much for their oncology medications. We all agree we must fix this. But Medicare also pays way too little for essential oncology services, and so the overpayment for oncology drugs has been used to pay for treatments oncologists provide to cancer patients. We must fix both parts of this problem, but this bill still cuts hundreds of millions of dollars from cancer care. And it still risks the lives of cancer patients. We will all go home after passing a Medicare bill, and we will face our constituents. I, for one, do not want to tell the cancer patients in my district that Congress has decided to curtail their treatment and endanger their care. We can do better. We must. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I stand here this evening on the east coast. It is 10 o'clock, and our schedule is such that in the House of Representatives tomorrow we should be debating on this floor a bill to provide a more modernized Medicare delivery system which will focus on the needs of those receiving Medicare, mostly seniors, senior citizens, and also those with disabilities, their needs for medication. And as I am speaking, one of the last to speak this evening, remarking on the particular needs that women have, women my age because I am in that category who live longer and perhaps have worked out of the home less because of the needs of caring for both children and sometimes elders, and, therefore, pensions and other means of having security and retirement are not quite as readily available. So this burden weighs heavily on me. As I speak this moment, deliberations are under way for the rules for which we will debate this legislation tomorrow, and we will see what comes out of our time together on the floor of the House tomorrow. It is a momentous occasion because in my time of being a Member of Congress, having come to this place out of the health care field, having been a public health nurse for quite a few years in my community on the central coast of California, I have listened to my constituents in this new role of being their representative in the House of Representatives, the people's House, which by its very definition connects us to the citizens for whom we have this great opportunity and responsibility of being their voice here in the Federal Government to make sure that their needs and their inspiration and their motivations are heard. So I take seriously when many folks in my congressional district tell me that they are the ones who are buying these medications because their heart ailment or their arthritis or their different chronic conditions are requiring them to take medications, that they really cannot afford these if they are retired or living on a fixed income because of Social Security requirements and also maybe their pension. These are not exorbitant amounts usually. They do not consider themselves poor. They have worked all their life, done well really, the Greatest Generation is what many have called them; and yet they find themselves struggling at a time when they had looked to their government with the promise of Medicare, which they had seen there for their parents, this program that was instituted in the 1960's, and they say why is it that I cannot pay for my medications? They are so expensive. I go one month and it is a particular cost, sometimes $100 or several hundred; go another month and it has been practically doubled in price. It is terrifying for seniors who face perhaps hospital stays if they do not take their medication. The blood pressure shooting up, consequences and side effects to conditions that they want to control so that they can live independent lives, not to be dependent on their children or on others or on society, God forbid, having lived independent lives. So I carry this burden to Congress, and I am proud of being part of a country that had the wherewithal and the mindset, first of all, to start the Social Security system so that we recognize that we really do want to respect the security needs of our seniors; and then when we recognized that health care was beyond the reach of many of them in the 1960's, we devised a plan. I was not here then, of course; but I saw that it made such an impact on citizens that I was working with and dealing with living amongst my own family members to see that Medicare could be there because the private sector, the insurance companies found that this population was hard to insure. These are the years when people need their medical doctors and their sometimes hospital stays and often medications to stay alive and to stay healthy, and Medicare has been a blessing because people are living longer. I think there is a direct connection. Now we face this crisis. I commend this administration and this Congress foreseeing that this is a time that we must do something about this. But we now must do it in the right way. We have seen that a public provision is what is needed for Medicare. We must also make sure that we do not go off that track and try to privatize this one aspect of it. We have had that option, and that itself was rather an experiment to offer Medicare+Choice. A few years ago that became very popular. That has not worked in my area on the central coast of California, and it is rural. I will wrap this up by saying that the decisions that we will make tomorrow will have tremendous ramifications, and we need to learn from the people we represent and listen to them and do what they have asked us to do, which is to keep this plan a public plan as it has been, provide the prescription medication in the way that we know that will serve their needs best.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in expressing outrage at terrorism perpetrated by Palestinian extremists since the Aqaba Summit. The people of the United States continue to stand in solidarity with the people of Israel. But I regret this resolution is not as complete or constructive as it might be. We mourn the 22 innocent Israelis that have been killed since the summit, but over twice that number of innocent civilian Palestinians have also died as a result of military strikes from Israel. Their loss should also be explicitly recognized in such a resolution. I sincerely wish the House had used this opportunity to offer its clear support for the President's road map to Middle East peace. This road map is not perfect, but it is currently the only legitimate way to stop terrorism and get the parties back to the path of peace. Under the road map the Palestinian Authority must crack down on terrorism, and Israel must dismantle illegal settlements and begin an end to occupation. Abandoning the road map in the wake of the recent terrorism would not help Israel. In contrast, it would reward the terrorists. I object to the resolution's condemnation of the phrase ``cycle of violence'' because it is a fact for the past 2\1/2\ years we have witnessed a heartbreaking and endless cycle of terrorist attacks, assassinations, reprisals and retaliations. Since the peace process collapsed, 800 Israelis and 2,100 Palestinians have been killed. The Israeli economy has collapsed. The humanitarian crisis in the West Bank and in Gaza has intensified. Therefore, it is imperative that under the road map security cooperation would resume. This is critical because it is clear that neither prime minister, Abu Mazen nor Sharon, neither of these can stop terrorism without the other. This conflict will never end without a comprehensive political solution; and we, the United States, must lead both parties to that agreement. Otherwise Israelis and Palestinians may be doomed to a life of violence and suffering forever. It is not what these people deserve, and it is surely not what America can afford.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, the Medicare bill that we will vote on this week is a bad bill. It undercuts this critical program that has been provided health care to millions of seniors. It provides spotty coverage that will not help these seniors with their expensive medications. And it reneges on a promise that we have made to America's seniors by ending Medicare as we have known it. But I want to talk about a particularly objectionable provision in this bill that has not gotten much attention. The part that cuts funding for cancer care. The Medicare bill is supposed to make it easier for patients to get health care, but it will actually make it harder for cancer patients to get the care they need. Cancer is a scourge that has touched nearly every person and family in this country. Cancer patients and their loved ones have a very strong loyalty to the medical professionals, this whole team of oncology care givers who deliver what is so often brutal treatment. This is especially true of the often unsung heros of quality cancer care, oncology nurses. As a nurse and someone who lost a daughter to cancer, I have seen firsthand essential contributions made by these amazing men and women who monitor and support, deftly guide the delicate treatment regimen. But the House Medicare bill has a provision that will cut half a billion dollars from cancer care in America. Anyone who thinks you can take this much money away from cancer care and not endanger the quality is fooling themselves. The bill does correct an overpayment for oncology drugs that goes on today. Medicare's system of paying for cancer drugs charges cancer payment and the government too much and doctors too much. There is no disagreement on that or on that it needs to be fixed. But while we have paid too much for cancer drugs, Medicare drastically underpays the oncology practice costs. The oncology community has been using this overpayment for medications as a way to make up for the underpayment in oncology services. And we should fix this overpayment for medications because the patients should not be overcharged for their medications. Of course, Medicare and taxpayers should not be overcharged either. But we also have to make sure oncologists are paid properly for their services. Cancer care has changed a great deal since the creation of Medicare. In fact, most of cancer care has been developed since Medicare was created, moving out of the hospital and into doctors offices and clinics where having oncology nurses and support staff are even more important. They are the frontline providers of cancer care, managing therapies and side effects, helping to keep seniors out of the hospital, saving the Medicare program money, providing counseling to patients and their families and conducting clinical trials and research to improve and advance cancer treatment. Yet, while patients value this high-quality hands-on loving care, Medicare dramatically undervalues and underpays the cancer care given by these nurses, pharmacists, social workers, and lab technicians who are part of the multidisciplinary cancer team. Without adequate resources, the reality is that physicians will be unable to sustain the provisions of quality care and will reduce their practices or close them entirely. The first services to be let go will be oncology nurses. In addition to cutting funds from cancer care, the new payment system in this bill will make many cancer patients, 60 percent of the seniors on Medicare, go to the oncologists twice as often, frail, sick seniors doing this. It will actually cause cancer patients to pay more out of pocket costs and wait longer for treatment, increasing their health risks. It is so wrong. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and I joined with the cancer community to craft legislation to resolve inequities in the cancer care system and address concerns about the overpayment for oncology drugs. And we work hard during the recent markup to try to correct the Medicare bills flawed cancer provision. Our proposal offers a more accurate payment for oncology drugs and would direct Medicare to establish new payments amounts for physician services related to the treatment of cancer patients, including the added work performed before and after patient visits and consultations. It is so essential. It recognizes the true cost of providing cancer care. We will all go home after we pass this Medicare bill, and we will have to face our constituents. I, for one, do not want to tell the cancer patients in my district that Congress has decided to curtail their treatment and endanger their care. I hope no one here will. Just listen to what the cancer community is saying about the House and Senate bills. Ellen Stovall of the National Coalition of Cancer Survivorship says, ``Instead of expanding access to life saving drugs, these bills limit access to cancer treatments for some of the most seriously ill Medicare beneficiaries.'' Susan Braun of the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation says, ``The millions of cancer patients in this country who rely upon Medicare need to know that their access to care will be severely disrupted if these bills go through.'' They are going to hold us accountable, and they should. Mr. Speaker, I hope that all my colleagues will join me in fixing these unfair and shortsighted provisions of this Medicare bill.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, the news from Jerusalem today is horrifying. Another terrorist attack on a civilian bus. So many dead. Many more are injured and even more are bereaved. Today's atrocity follows and may have been in response to an attack yesterday on a Hamas leader in Gaza which injured its target but killed innocent victims. When will this cycle of violence end? Not even a week has passed since the President received the commitment of Ariel Sharon and Abu Mazen to do everything in their power to stop the killing and pursue the path of negotiations. Instead, we have terrorist attacks, attempted assassinations, horrific retaliations and more bloody reprisals. Last week's optimism has yielded to this week's despair. I urge President Bush to make it clear to both sides that the United States will continue to insist on the terms agreed to at the Aqaba summit, an end to the violence, the dismantling of the illegal outposts and the resumption of security cooperation. Clearly, Abu Mazen must do much more to stop terrorism. But it is obvious that he cannot stop the murderous Palestinian extremists without help from Israel. And Israel will never succeed in vanquishing terrorism through military force and continued occupation. A political solution is the only answer. The road map to peace has hit a tremendous obstacle. But we have no choice but to persevere. If this initiative is destroyed, Israelis and Palestinians may be doomed to a life of violence and suffering forever. Such a fate is not what these two peoples deserve, and it is surely not what America can afford. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) is recognized for 5 minutes. (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois addressed the House. His remarks will appear hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.)

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise deeply troubled that the House is again voting on this ill-conceived bill to ban a medical procedure. Let us be honest: The underlying issue is really about whether or not a woman should have the legal right to choose to end a seriously flawed pregnancy. As my colleagues stated, the term ``partial-birth abortion'' cannot be found in any medical literature. Lawmakers have continued this misnomer, ``partial-birth abortion,'' and have succeeded in confusing the public's understanding of the issue. Federal law already bans procedures performed after fetal viability unless the mother's health is at risk. But this bill directly defies the Supreme Court because it once again lacks an adequate health exception, and it could outlaw procedures used in the first or second trimester before viability that can safely protect the health of the mother. By criminalizing these constitutionally protected procedures, physicians are left with limited options when treating a patient in a crisis. The ban would force a woman to undergo potentially more damaging, risky, and rarely performed procedures or otherwise continue a very unsafe pregnancy. Sadly, there are times when it may be necessary for a woman to terminate a wanted pregnancy. It is often impossible to detect fetal abnormalities before the second trimester, and it is at this stage that certain preexisting medical conditions exacerbated by pregnancy may worsen for a woman. At these unfortunate times, a woman, in consultation with doctors and families, must freely be able to determine the best course to preserve her life, her health, her future fertility. Congress is treading in dangerous waters with this legislation. In this Chamber we often insist that we should not be telling doctors how to practice medicine, we should not usurp the opinions of medical experts when considering patient safety, standards of care for diseases, and the administration of drugs. But with this bill today, Congress, comprised predominantly of lawyers, is entering into a hospital room, acting as a gatekeeper, and dictating what doctors can and cannot do in medical practice. For these reasons, I support the Hoyer-Greenwood substitute. This substitute clearly and in medical terms bans all post-viability abortions except in cases where serious, adverse health consequences could result to the woman's health, or the woman's life is at stake. This amendment would allow physicians to continue to make these critical medical decisions. I urge my colleagues to reject the underlying bill and to support the substitute.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me time. I wish to engage the distinguished gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter) in colloquy to clarify his amendment which is included in the en bloc amendment. This amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to reach an agreement with another Federal entity naming the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control as preferred candidates to conduct an independent epidemiological study of the effects of perchlorate on humans. It is my understanding that this study would not be done by the Department of Defense or the Department of Energy; am I correct?

Mrs. CAPPS. I yield to the gentleman from Nevada.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter) for this clarification.

Mrs. CAPPS. It is also my understanding that the gentleman's intention in requiring this independent Federal study of perchlorate is to add to the scientific database on this chemical. I understand that your amendment is not intended to delay the setting of a drinking water standard for perchlorate or to delay any cleanup at any site that may have perchlorate contamination. Is my understanding correct?