Lois Capps

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the Taking Essential Steps for Testing Act is a bipartisan, sensible bill which will provide the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services the flexibility it needs in imposing penalties on clinical laboratories that violate certain recertification procedures. While not commonly discussed, the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988, or CLIA, is an important law that ensures all labs operating in the United States can be trusted. Under CLIA, all labs must be certified to prove they are qualified to perform clinical tests while meeting quality and safety standards. We can all agree this is a good thing. Labs are periodically retested to keep their CLIA certification. To do this, labs are required to perform proficiency tests which measure the quality and competency of a lab's work. Unlike some tests that come to a lab that can be sent out to other labs, proficiency tests must be performed in-house. Currently, if a lab is found to have referred a proficiency test to another lab, the Secretary of HHS must revoke that lab's certificate for at least 1 year. This prevents it from participating in Medicare or Medicaid for that period. In addition, the operator of any lab that has had its certificate revoked is barred from owning or operating any certified labs for 2 years. However, current law does not allow the Secretary any flexibility in imposing these penalties for labs that improperly refer proficiency tests--even when it's an unintentional referral. This has led to labs that are being shut down across the country, potentially affecting patient care and access, even when their actions are not worthy of such a sanction. This is especially pronounced when the sanction occurs on just one lab that is part of a larger health care system, as the penalties apply to the entire system, even if all the other labs happen to be in compliance. So this legislation would help address these problems by allowing CMS the flexibility to institute lesser sanctions to really address the problem instead of penalizing an entire system for unintentional proficiency test referrals. The bill does so without changing the accountability within the law or making our labs less reliable. And CMS still will be required and able to hold so-called ``bad actors'' accountable. This bill is a very commonsense reform to CLIA, and I'm pleased to support it. I urge my colleagues to do so as well. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAPPS. May I ask the chairman if he has any other speakers?

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, in closing, the Taking Essential Steps for Testing Act is a straightforward bill with bipartisan support. It will give CMS tools to effectively deal with labs that unintentionally refer out their proficiency tests, maintain sanctions for labs that intentionally flaunt the law, and ensure that certified clinical labs are there for us when we need them. I urge support for this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, our military men and women are trained to perform at the highest levels in a host of jobs. The individuals who serve our Nation in uniform do so with distinction. However, there is much more to be done to help our service men and women and their families when they return home to translate those skills and experiences into civilian service. That disconnect is what we are trying to address here today. Our military men and women receive some of the best technical training in emergency medicine, and every day, on the battlefield, they prove their skills under the very toughest of conditions. However, when they return home, experienced military medics are often required to start over. They must begin at entry-level curricula to receive certification for civilian jobs. Similarly, military medics with civilian credentials often must let their civilian certifications lapse while they're defending our country. Either way, this keeps our veterans out of the civilian workforce and withholds valuable medical personnel from our communities. As a nurse, I know the importance of having qualified and capable first responders in each of our communities, and that is why we must do all we can to break down the artificial barriers that obstruct our military medics from civilian opportunities. So I am pleased to have joined Congressman Kinzinger to introduce H.R. 4124, which is the Veteran Emergency Medical Technician Support Act. This bill is a straightforward, bipartisan approach to help States streamline their certification processes to take military medic training into account for civilian licensure. It's a small but very important step towards breaking down the barriers that our servicemembers face when transitioning home. While the bill directs States to undertake these demonstration projects, I believe public and private organizations within the States, like area health education centers, or AHECs, will be important partners in the successful implementation of this initiative. This will help engage and leverage expertise already in our States and communities so that we can do our best by our veterans. I also want to take a moment to thank the leadership of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Waxman, Chairman Pitts, and Ranking Member Pallone for their dedication to this bill and to the staff for working in a bipartisan manner to bring this to the floor. Finally, I want to take a second to recognize a former congresswoman, Jane Harman, who spearheaded this issue in the last Congress. I urge my colleagues' support for this legislation, and I look forward to swift consideration of it in the Senate. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAPPS. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I also wish to thank my colleague, Mr. Kinzinger, for his leadership and his experience in the military, which led him to be very interested in this topic as well. The Veteran Emergency Medical Technician Support Act is a small but very important step toward helping our military medics transition to civilian EMT service, and it is a bipartisan measure. It fills a need both in the veterans' community and also in our health care communities. I urge full support for this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, last month, our Nation reached a significant milestone in the growth of homegrown renewable energy. The United States surpassed 50 gigawatts of installed wind power capacity, which is enough to power over 13 million American households a year. This is a major accomplishment for an industry predicted to deliver only a quarter of that amount a decade ago. We should be celebrating this success brought about by innovation, hard work, and smart policies. Sadly, the celebration may be a short one if Congress doesn't act swiftly to continue the bipartisan production tax credit, which is a key factor in wind power's expansion. My constituents who work at companies like Clipper Windpower and Infinity Wind Power have told me that letting the PTC lapse would devastate their industry and eliminate thousands of jobs. It's time to give these companies certainty by taking up a multiyear extension of the PTC without delay. Our country cannot afford to pull the rug out from under a true American success story. Let's renew the production tax credit now and maintain our leadership in transitioning to cleaner, safer sources of energy.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of extending tax cuts for middle class families and small businesses. I support a plan that allows generous tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent to expire, while also ensuring taxes do not go up on those that can least afford it. This is the plan that passed the Senate last week. And this is the plan that President Obama said he is ready and eager to sign should it pass the House. Unfortunately, however, this is not the plan being offered by the Majority on the floor here today. The Majority's proposal, H.R. 8, preserves tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent at the expense of middle class families and small businesses. It gives, on average, an extra $160,000 tax cut to millionaires while raising taxes on 25 million middle class families by an average of $1,000 by restricting or eliminating crucial tax credits that middle class families depend on to pay their bills and send their kids to college, like the Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, and American Opportunity Tax Credit. This is not the balanced, equitable solution my constituents on the Central Coast and the American people are asking for, which is why I strongly oppose H.R. 8 and will vote against it. I will instead be voting for the substitute amendment, which is identical to the legislation the Senate passed last week. It extends for one year the current tax rates on income, capital gains and dividends for taxable income up to $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples. Under this plan, all taxpayers will benefit from the tax breaks on income up to these thresholds, and 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small businesses will see no tax increase at all. This proposal also fixes the Alternative Minimum Tax for 2012 and extends several other important tax provisions that middle class families and small businesses depend on, including marriage penalty relief, expanded child and earned income tax credits, education tax incentives, and small business expensing. This is a reasonable, responsible plan that should have bipartisan support. Democrats and Republicans agree on the need to extend the tax cuts for middle class families and small businesses, and this plan does exactly that. The substitute reflects this consensus and gives middle class families certainty that their taxes will not go up next year. We should move forward with what we already agree on instead of holding hostage those who can least afford it for the benefit of the wealthiest among us. We simply cannot afford to continue the tax cuts for the richest two percent and leave middle class families with the bill. We have a serious deficit problem that requires a balanced solution to ensure everyone bears a fair share of the burden. Letting tax rates on the richest in our society simply return to where they were in the 1990s, when our economy was booming, is one common sense step in that process. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this balanced approach and voting yes on the substitute.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to mark a key milestone in women's access to affordable health care services. Starting today, and thanks to the health care reform law, women will have guaranteed access to a host of preventive services in new health care plans, without additional costs. These benefits--including annual well-women physicals, birth control coverage, and screenings for domestic violence among them--are a critical step to ensuring that all women get the care they need to stay healthy and treat disease early. Far too often, women put off needed care because of the cost; but this new coverage benefit makes some of these tough decisions a thing of the past, decisions like whether to pay for treatment or to pay for groceries. As we celebrate this day, we must also remember that these health care services continue to be politicized and face many attacks. These attacks are not only divisive but an intrusion into women's private health decisions. We must stand up to such partisan attacks and support these important health care benefits and thus ensure that all women and their families have access to affordable preventive care services.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 134 and in support of the greater Denver community in the wake of the Aurora, Colorado tragedy. Twelve lives have been lost, 58 injured, and countless others affected by the shooting in Aurora, Colorado on July 20, 2012. This horrible crime reminds us that our time here is short, and that while we cannot always prevent senseless acts of violence, families, friends and neighbors can come together as a community to honor those we have lost, celebrate those who are still with us, and resolve to do all we can to prevent future violence. The Aurora community has exemplified this spirit of resiliency in the wake of tragedy, and is truly an inspiration for all of us. While we know not every senseless act of violence can be avoided, we can--and must--work every day to treat each other with decency and genuine respect. And I hope that this act of violence will not just sit on a page in our history books, but be a catalyst for the important conversations we have avoided all too long. There is more that we can do to protect our families and communities from gun violence. There is more that we can do to support our mental health care systems--both to avert future violence and to support those who are touched by it. And there is more that we can do to create a culture of tolerance and understanding. We stand together across our nation, knowing we are not grieving alone, and that others share our outrage at violent actions and violent rhetoric. As the Denver community heals from this senseless tragedy, please know that you are in the thoughts and prayers of all Americans.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. Chairman, here we are, voting once again to mandate new offshore drilling in areas where it simply isn't wanted. And just like before, this proposal simply ignores the facts, the facts stated by my colleague from New Jersey: the fact that we already make more than 75 percent of the offshore oil and gas resources available for drilling; the fact that domestic oil production is at an 18-year high; and the fact that we have more rigs that are drilling in the United States than in the rest of the world combined. Instead of addressing the real issues in offshore drilling, like the need to adopt the safety recommendations of the nonpartisan oil spill commission, this bill seeks to compound the problems by mandating new drilling all over the place. H.R. 6082 also cavalierly dismisses the legitimate concerns raised by the people most affected by this mandated new drilling idea--my constituents. After nearly 100 years of drilling off my coastline, Californians have spoken loud and clear: we've had enough. In fact, a 2010 proposal to allow slant drilling from the shores of a coastal town in my district was opposed by 70 percent--that's right, 70 percent--of the voters. To protect communities now at risk under this bill, I offered an amendment that would have stopped the mandated new lease sales off southern California--off my district--but the majority refused to allow a debate on this amendment. In addition, this new mandated drilling would happen on platforms that have been in the Santa Barbara Channel since the Everly Brothers were topping the music charts over 50 years ago. It's not a good idea to use these old rigs for expanded drilling-- 20 of them--including platform A, as my colleague referenced, which was the very culprit of the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill. I offered an amendment to require the Interior Department to certify these platforms were actually capable of handling new drilling before it could start; but thanks to the Rules Committee, we won't be debating that issue either. What is also true is that the Pentagon doesn't support new drilling off its base on the central coast. The Pentagon told ExxonMobil that the company's proposed drilling plan at Vandenberg Air Force Base would ``present a wide range of significant operational constraints.'' That's why I offered an amendment to protect the national space launch mission at Vandenberg Air Force Base; but again, the House won't be able to debate that issue, and the concerns of the Air Force are left unaddressed. Mr. Chairman, it's clear that H.R. 6082 is not a well-thought out proposal. It's another heavy-handed, know-it-all approach from Washington, D.C.--rubber-stamping destructive drilling, cutting out environmental reviews, limiting public input. That might be good policy for oil companies; but it's bad policy for my constituents, and it's bad energy policy for our Nation. I urge my colleagues to oppose this reckless offshore drilling bill.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my congratulations to the city of Morro Bay in my congressional district on the central coast of California. Last month, the city won the 2012 award for Excellence in Local Governance for coastal and ocean management from NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This award is for its groundbreaking work with other coastal communities in California, local fishermen, and the Nature Conservancy to preserve historic fishing activity and build long-term economic and environmental resiliency on California's central coast. Working together, these partners realized that Morro Bay and other small fishing communities--our working waterfronts--needed to respond to the changing conditions of their fisheries. This effort has not been easy, to be sure; but Morro Bay's leaders, who have faced huge obstacles in their efforts to try new approaches to fisheries management, were determined to make this work. So it is great to see this recognition of their courage and their hard work to improve Morro Bay's leading industry. Again, I congratulate the city of Morro Bay and its innovative partners for earning this acknowledgement.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the memory of Henry A. Schimberg--a talented entrepreneur and distinguished member of the Santa Barbara community. Mr. Schimberg passed away on June 29, 2012 while traveling in Europe with his wife, Marjorie. Henry Schimberg was born in Chicago in 1933 and went on to attend Beloit College in Wisconsin, where he received his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1954. Henry started his extremely successful career as a truck driver at Royal Crown Bottling Co. in Chicago in 1958. After decades of working in the bottling industry, Henry became the president and COO of Coca-Cola Enterprises in 1990; in 1998 he became the company's CEO. During his tenure, Coca-Cola Enterprises experienced the most financially successful period in its history. Mr. Schimberg shared a deep passion for ethics with my late husband, Walter. Henry was deeply involved with the Walter H. Capps Center for the Study of Ethics, Religion, and Public Life at the University of California, Santa Barbara and the Center's efforts in developing a strong sense of personal and business ethics among future business and corporate leaders. The Center's annual undergraduate seminar, ``Ethics, Enterprise, and Leadership,'' is an innovative course designed in part by Mr. Schimberg that introduces students to the diverse frameworks of ethical decision-making and teaches them to evaluate actual corporate and business dilemmas from ethical, legal and business perspectives. Henry was a regular speaker at the course and was greatly admired by his students and the faculty at UCSB. I have no doubt that his legacy will be carried on through this wonderful course that upholds values dear to his and my family's hearts. Henry is survived by his wife, Marjorie; son, Aaron Schimberg and his wife Vanessa; daughter, Alexis Schimberg and her husband Jason Rothenberg; and his siblings, Elsa Dimick, Deedee Gartman and her husband Jerry; and Jake Schimberg and his wife Hollie. Henry's passing has been felt deeply by the many people who were touched by his life and accomplishments. The Santa Barbara community will miss an invaluable leader and friend. I offer my most heartfelt condolences to Henry's family and friends. Please join me in honoring this exemplary American.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I rise to express my support for House Resolution 689, a resolution introduced by my colleague, Rosa DeLauro, honoring Catholic Sisters for their tremendous contributions to our country. Catholic Sisters have long been responsible for providing care to the neediest, most marginalized people in our society. Whether they're feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, educating our students, healing the sick, or fighting for a cleaner environment, the Catholic Sisters have touched millions of lives across the country and around the world. Madam Speaker, Catholic hospitals call themselves dignity hospitals in my district, and they play a key role in providing health services, and those institutions all rely on the tireless support of Catholic Sisters. I want to pay special tribute to one of them, my constituent, Sister Janet Corcoran, a member of the Sisters of St. Francis who works at Marian Medical Center in Santa Maria, California. She's a pillar of our community, tirelessly advocating everywhere she goes on behalf of better health care, education, social justice, peace, and environmental protection. Reinforced by a deep faith in God, she and other Catholic Sisters on the Central Coast, and throughout the country demonstrate an unwavering commitment to the common good day in and day out. We have much to thank them for, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important resolution.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague. I rise today in strong opposition to this bill that would take away insurance protections and new access to health care from tens of thousands on the central coast of California. Thanks to this law, families are telling me they no longer need to worry that their children will be denied insurance due to a preexisting health condition. In my district alone, 9,500 students--young adults--now have health insurance through their parents' plan. A young college graduate recently came up to me at the grocery store thanking me for the peace of mind as he's looking for a job. In my community, 59,000 seniors now receive free preventive care and thousands of seniors in the dreaded doughnut hole have received discounts for prescription drugs, saving an average of $610. Now some folks around here may not think that much of a savings of $600. But for so many, this makes a world of difference. Indeed, one of my constituents, Ella May from Nipomo, wrote this to me, saying that thanks to this law, ``I won't be impoverished again by the cost of my medicines.'' But this House majority has set up yet another vote to take away these benefits from Ella May, from my community, and from the Nation. Mr. Speaker, we should be working to stimulate growth in our economy and spur job creation, not voting for a 31st time on repealing this law. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Chair, this is a straightforward amendment to increase funding for the HUD Housing Counseling Assistance Program. As we all know, the foreclosure crisis continues to ravage our families in many parts of the country. This is a problem in my home State of California, but also in many other States. Nevada, Florida, Ohio, Illinois, and Georgia all have foreclosure rates well above the national average. There are many efforts aimed at solving this crisis, but local housing counseling agencies have proven to be among the most effective tools we have to help struggling families stay in their homes during these tough times. These local nonprofits are filled with dedicated staff who work tirelessly to help homeowners make informed decisions and stay in their homes. They provide a wide range of free counseling services, including post-purchase counseling, renter counseling, reverse mortgage counseling for senior homeowners, and counseling for homeless individuals and families seeking shelter. And they depend on Federal funding from HUD's Housing Counseling Assistance Program to provide these services. Every dollar allocated to these local organizations helps to ensure that all homeowners in financial distress may have a trusted third- party resource to turn to free of charge. Recognizing the value and effectiveness of housing counselors, Congress more than doubled funding for this critical program from 2007 to 2010 to help combat the rapidly expanding foreclosure crisis, and that money was money well spent. Local counseling agencies used the funding to create jobs by hiring additional counselors and expanding their services to meet the rapidly growing demand created by the recession. Sadly, however, funding for Housing Counseling Assistance was abruptly eliminated in FY 2011. This was a devastating blow to these local organizations, resulting in layoffs and, more important, elimination of a valuable and much needed service to homeowners who are in trouble. Thankfully, we were able to restore some of this funding last year, and I thank the chairman and the Appropriations Committee for maintaining last year's funding level in the bill before us. But, frankly, this is not enough. The foreclosure crisis is far from over, and the need for this funding has never been greater. Just last month, one in every 639 houses nationwide received a foreclosure notice. That's why my amendment would increase funding for HUD Housing Counseling Assistance by $10 million, matching the President's request of $55 million. The amendment is fully paid for with a $10 million reduction in the administration's operations and management account. This additional funding will make a tremendous difference in the lives of middle class Americans in my district and across this country who are desperately trying to stay afloat. In my district on the central coast of California, where the foreclosure rate remains well above the national average, every little bit makes such a difference. I know my local housing counselors, like SurePath Financial, like People's Self-Help Housing and Cabrillo Economic Development, they're going to be able to help many more of my constituents with this extra funding. I know some States have been harder hit than others by the foreclosure crisis, but the benefits of counseling extend to all homeowners, not just those facing foreclosure. In a recently released study, HUD examined both families seeking to purchase their first homes and those struggling to prevent foreclosure. In the pre-purchase counseling study, HUD found that of those participants that became homeowners, all but one of them remained current on their mortgage payments after 18 months. This study shows that housing counseling is not only helping address the current foreclosure crisis, it's also helping prevent future crises by helping homeowners find mortgages that they can afford and fully understand. When homeowners understand their mortgage and properly plan, they're much more likely to make their payments on time and avoid foreclosure in the future. The Housing Counseling Assistance Program helps to make that happen. This program has broad national support from respected nonprofits like Catholic Charities, National Council on Aging, and the National Council of La Raza, and for-profit industry groups like the Mortgage Bankers Association. And it should have broad bipartisan support here in the House as well. I'm willing to bet that most of my colleagues in this House have referred constituents in need of help to their local housing counseling agencies. I know I certainly have. I have no reservations about referring my constituents to local HUD-certified housing counselors because I know they will receive excellent advice and guidance. But as the foreclosure crisis has dragged on, demand for help has far exceeded the resources available. My amendment will not immediately solve this enormous program, but it will certainly help. This shouldn't be a partisan issue. I know we must make tough choices to balance our budget, but we must also make smart choices. Voting for my amendment is a smart choice. It's also the right choice for Americans who are still struggling to stay afloat. So I urge my colleagues to support our local housing counselors and vote ``yes'' on my amendment. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. It is No. 23.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that we can all simply agree to this amendment. Among this bill's many provisions is one that creates a new interagency committee to do the impossible. It is charged with conducting an analysis of the EPA air quality rules that have not been proposed, using data that does not even exist. I'm concerned that this new interagency committee is being set up to fail. First, the bill before us requires the new committee to examine the potential impact of several EPA air quality rules on gasoline prices. There's one significant problem. These rules have not yet been proposed. Now, we can argue about whether they have been initiated, contemplated, discussed, mulled over, considered and so forth. But the fundamental fact is that the rules and their requirements have not even yet been proposed. The committee simply has nothing concrete to analyze. As a result, any report that this new interagency committee would complete would be the product of a series of best guesses, estimates, approximations, and assumptions that cannot possibly provide credible assessment of a potential impact of these potential rules on gasoline prices. Moreover, it may not even be possible for the interagency committee to complete this analysis, as insufficient as it will be, without a significant investment of resources at the Department of Energy. We asked the Energy Information Administration what it would take to complete such an analysis. EIA, which is better positioned than any other government agency to tackle this project, said that it currently does not have the analytic capability even to conduct the State or regional level breakdowns required by such a bill. The agency also would have to collect or purchase new data, despite the bill's hollow assurances that this isn't necessary. And the Department of Energy would have to devote significant new staff and contractor time to be able to comply with the bill's requirements. In essence, this bill proposes to devote scarce taxpayer dollars to produce a report that will not be reliable, credible, or even valuable to anyone. My amendment simply states that if the Energy Department determines that that analysis is not feasible to conduct, requires data that does not exist, or generates results that would not be reliable or useful, then the interagency committee does not have to complete the report. If it determined that such an analysis is infeasible, the 6-month delay of EPA rules then would not go into effect. This amendment is a good-governance amendment that ensures effective use of taxpayer dollars. It's common sense. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, so I am prepared to close. Mr. Chairman, as we know and as my colleague from Colorado has just illustrated, the bill creates redundant layers of bureaucracy and requires a study of key air pollution standards that are not even yet proposed by the EPA. This is clearly designed to postpone pollution cleanup. My amendment is a straightforward amendment which simply says if the Energy Department's analysis of the EPA's air quality rules is not feasible or not useful, we should not be spending taxpayer resources on it. I would note again that these EPA air quality rules that would be analyzed aren't even on the books yet. We shouldn't be wasting agency time and resources on tasks like the ones proposed here. This amendment is one of common sense. It is straightforward and very simple. So I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise to express my strong opposition to this rule and the underlying bill. We all know that high oil and gasoline prices take their toll on American consumers. Understandably, they want their elected officials to take action. But what the American people don't want is empty promises, and they don't want more political posturing designed to score cheap political points in an election year. And that's all this bill gives us. H.R. 4480 blocks and delays EPA air-quality protections--protections that haven't even been proposed yet. It includes a radical proposal that damages the Clean Air Act goal that air should be clean enough to breathe safely. And it gives the Energy Department the job of developing a new drilling plan on Federal lands, even though this is not an area of expertise at all. Madam Speaker, the idea behind this bill is just not thought out. It's not a solution to high oil and gasoline prices, nor will it create any immediate jobs. It is really nothing more than a transparent attempt to use this issue as an excuse for advancing an agenda in order to hurt our precious resources of lands and our own health. And that's why I had sent to the Rules Committee a straightforward amendment that would have protected my State's coastline from new offshore drilling. My Republican colleague from California, Mr. Bilbray, had a similar amendment on the same issue; but this Rules Committee is not allowing either amendment even to be debated, even to have its say on the House floor. A State where offshore drilling has been protected in State waters will now, because these amendments were not made in order, have to allow the Federal Government to work its will in contradiction to the State. And that's wrong. That's why Members from both sides should use their good sense and oppose this rule and oppose the underlying bill.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the FDA Safety and Innovation Act. This bipartisan effort will improve the health and safety of the American people; and at the same time, it will support good jobs and innovation in the health care industry. I am especially pleased that this bill includes two provisions which I authored: The first is modeled on my SAFE Devices Act, which will improve the post-market surveillance of medical devices and the implementation of the unique device identifier program. This essential provision will allow us to identify potential device problems early, thereby protecting patients and identifying issues when they are easier and less costly to address; The second provision I authored comes from my bipartisan HEART for Women Act, which the House has passed two times. It requires the FDA to report on the availability of new drug and device safety and efficacy data by sex, age, and racial and ethnic subgroups. Drugs and devices can have dissimilar effects among various populations, and this provision will help reduce substantial disparities in health care, especially for women and minorities. So I thank the chairmen and ranking members for their leadership on the FDA Safety and Innovation Act and for their support of these two provisions. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today out of concern regarding the Protect Medical Innovation Act of 2011 (H.R. 436). I am extremely disappointed that this bill, which addresses important issues, was needlessly injected with partisanship. The medical device industry is integral to both our health care system and our economy. Regardless of our political leanings, we should all be able to agree that it is in all of our best interests to support a thriving domestic medical device industry. I have met with a variety of people on this issue--innovators, manufacturers, patients, consumer advocates, and many other stakeholders. I understand their concerns about the impact that this policy would have, especially on small firms and in California, and wish we had the opportunity to look at a range of options to address them. Unfortunately, in the bill before us, the House Majority has once again found a way to poison a bill by slashing important insurance provisions in the Affordable Care Act. Yet again they have shown that they are willing to disregard American families in order to get a pithy sound bite and further their own divisive agenda. By removing protections for low- and moderate income families who receive subsidies to purchase private health insurance, this bill pits American families verse manufacturers. It essentially punishes people for improving their situation by getting a new job or a raise. The result? According to the Congressional Budget Office, an estimated 350,000 families would be added to the uninsured ranks, and others would be left debating between going for a promotion or paying a hefty tax bill. Health care is a right deserved by all, and shouldn't come with fear of punishment. And the idea of asking American families to choose between having health insurance and improving their financial situations is preposterous. Through this bill, the other side has shown that they are more concerned with dismantling health care reform than ensuring that the American people have access to health care. And therefore I cannot vote for it.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding me time. I rise today in strong support of the FDA Reform Act of 2012. I must say it is an honor to associate myself with the remarks of our chairman emeritus, Mr. Dingell, who worked tirelessly over the years with regard to the Food and Drug Administration in making it a good institution that can only become better. This bill represents the spirit of compromise--compromise across the aisle and also among the many stakeholders that work toward innovations to improve our health. It demonstrates that at a time when most of the country believes that we in Congress can't work together at all or pass a piece of legislation without a long and bitter fight, we can come together to improve health, protect the safety of the American people and, at the same time, to support good jobs and innovation in our health care industry. I am especially pleased that two of my provisions have been included in this legislation. For example, the SAFE Devices Act will improve the postmarket surveillance of medical devices and the implementation of the unique device identifier program. This is an essential provision that will let us know that our devices work, and it will allow us to identify potential problems early on, protecting patients and identifying issues when they are easier and less costly to address. Additionally, the bill includes the simplification of FDA's de novo process--an important step to helping both medical devices manufacturers and patients. I thank Chairmen Upton and Pitts and Ranking Members Pallone and Waxman for their leadership on this bill. I also thank the numerous advocates, the many patients and other stakeholders who came together and contributed to this bill so that it would come to fruition today. Of course, there is more work in front of us that remains to be done, but this bill before us is an important step in ensuring that our drug and device pipelines continue to produce needed cures and treatments in order to keep us all healthy, which is why I urge my colleagues to support it.