Lois Capps

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, could we discuss this, please?

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to clause 11 of rule XVIII, I offer an amendment that will strike an unfunded mandate in section 1502.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

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

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mrs. CAPPS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the amendment will be recognized after the Grijalva amendment and before the Inslee amendment; am I correct?

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I am willing to withhold the amendment without prejudice to give us time for discussion.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy). (Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), who represents Santa Monica, where a huge MBTE pollution problem has occurred.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes, and appreciate the opportunity to bring this amendment to strike an unfunded mandate to the floor for debate. Mr. Chairman, this motion would do one thing: It would strike the safe harbor provisions for MTBE which CBO has identified as an unfunded mandate. This is CBO's analysis of the bill, and I quote, ``Section 1502 would shield manufacturers of motor fuels and other persons from liability for claims based on defective product. ``The provision would impose both an intergovernmental and private sector mandate as it would limit existing rights to seek compensation under current law.'' This provision in H.R. 6 transfers the cost of cleanups from responsible parties to constituents. It is an unfunded mandate, and it should be stricken from the bill. Mr. Chairman, this is a bad provision. MTBE contamination has averaged over 1,800 water systems in 29 States. Cleanup costs are at least $29 billion. MTBE contamination is a huge problem, and it is not going away. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. In response to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), I show him the headline in the newspaper of a little town in my district, where they had to sue Chevron for $9 billion for contamination of the water supply and it was settled out of court. They never would have gotten the settlement without the lawsuit. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our minority leader.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to strike an unfunded mandate.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to oncology nurses. Oncology nurses play an important and essential role in providing quality cancer care. These nurses are principally involved in the administration and monitoring of chemotherapy and the associated side-effects patients experience. As anyone ever treated for cancer will tell you, oncology nurses are intelligent, well-trained, highly skilled, kind-hearted angels who provide quality clinical, psychosocial and supportive care to patients and their families. In short, they are integral to our nation's cancer care delivery system. I congratulate the Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) on its 30th Anniversary. ONS is the largest organization of oncology health professionals in the world, with more than 31,000 registered nurses and other health care professionals. Since 1975, ONS has been dedicated to excellence in patient care, teaching, research, administration and education in the field of oncology. The Society's mission is to promote excellence in oncology nursing and quality cancer care. To that end, ONS honors and maintains nursing's historical and essential commitment to advocate for the public good by providing nurses and healthcare professionals with access to the highest quality educational programs, cancer-care resources, research opportunities and networks for peer support. ONS has 19 chapters in my home state of California, which help oncology nurses provide high quality cancer care to patients and their families in our state. Cancer is a complex, multifaceted and chronic disease, and people with cancer are best served by a multidisciplinary health care team specialized in oncology care, including nurses who are certified in that specialty. Each year in the United States, approximately 1.37 million people are diagnosed with cancer, another 570,000 lose their battles with this terrible disease, and more than 8 million Americans count themselves among a growing community known as cancer survivors. Every day, oncology nurses see the pain and suffering caused by cancer and understand the physical, emotional, and financial challenges that people with cancer face throughout their diagnosis and treatment. Over the last ten years, the setting where treatment for cancer is provided has changed dramatically. An estimated 80 percent of all cancer patients receive care in community settings, including cancer centers, physicians' offices, and hospital outpatient departments. Treatment regimens are as complex, if not more so, than regimens given in the inpatient setting a few short years ago. Oncology nurses are involved in the care of a cancer patient from the beginning through the end of treatment, and they are the front-line providers of care by administering chemotherapy, managing patient therapies and side- effects, working with insurance companies to ensure that patients receive the appropriate treatment, provide counseling to patients and family members, in addition to many other daily acts on behalf of cancer patients. I thank all oncology nurses for their dedication to our nation's cancer patients, and commend the Oncology Nursing Society for all of its efforts and leadership over the last 30 years. They have contributed immensely to the quality and accessibility of care for all cancer patients and their families, and I urge my colleagues to support them in their important endeavors.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, strong opposition to this bill. My colleagues have outlined the many problems with it. It does nothing to impact gas prices. In fact, according to the Energy Information Agency, it will raise prices at the pump. It gives billions to industries with already-soaring profits, and it weakens a host of environmental laws. Mr. Chairman, one provision epitomizes the bill's failures. H.R. 6 grants liability protection for people who make MTBE who are responsible for polluting groundwater in dozens of States, leaving hundreds of communities saddled with billions of dollars in cleanup costs. Supporters claim it is fair to protect MTBE producers from liability since Congress mandated its use in the Clean Air Act, but there is no mandate for MTBE and even the chairman of the committee has acknowledged as much. In fact, 120 million barrels were added to gasoline before the clean air regulations were ever issued. Most damning, documents unearthed in court cases show that manufacturers knew the dangers MTBE posed to groundwater, and they still added it to gasoline. The result is what we have today, over 1,800 contamination sites in 29 different States serving 45 million Americans. I wanted to offer an amendment to strike this provision because in its wisdom the House leadership would not want to vote on this. Perhaps it is because too many Members on both sides of the aisle represent districts with bad MTBE problems in places where lawsuits are pending. Because of the MTBE provisions alone, we should reject this bill.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for raising this point of order. I believe that it goes right to the heart of the problem with the MTBE provisions in this bill. They pass on huge costly problems to other parties. In this case, H.R. 6 would shift the costs of cleaning up MTBE groundwater contamination on to the towns, the cities, and the water districts around this country. In other words, it would shift these cleanup costs from the oil companies responsible for the mess to our constituents, who have to live with the mess. Mr. Speaker, MTBE has caused damage to the groundwater across our Nation. It is found in 1,861 different water systems, 29 different States, serving 45 million people. Cleanup costs are estimated at around 29, maybe $30 billion. I might point out to my colleagues that there are about $2 billion in the LUST fund, and it is to cover all kinds of leakage, not just MTBE. This is a huge problem, and it is not going away. It is the fault of the MTBE industry, and they should have to fix it. Mr. Speaker, the MTBE industry says it was forced to put MTBE in gasoline by the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. There is no MTBE mandate in that law. Even the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce has acknowledged that. Industry representatives have testified before Congress that MTBE has been widely used since 1979. This is an ARCO circular from around the 1980s urging refiners to add MTBE. By the time of the 1990 Clean Air amendments, the industry had already added 120 million barrels of MTBE to gasoline. Even more damning are the documents unearthed in recent court cases proving conclusively that the industry knew as early as the 1980s about the dangers MTBE posed to groundwater. It still went on adding it to gasoline. The special protection for MTBE manufacturers is in this bill because they are finally being taken to task for the damages they knowingly caused. Recent court cases regarding responsibility for MTBE groundwater contamination have come down on the side of local water companies and cities. These cases have forced manufacturers to pay to clean up or replace MTBE-contaminated water supplies. The most celebrated has been the $60 million settlement for south Lake Tahoe and the nearly $400 million for Santa Monica. In my district, the tiny little coastal town of Cambria had one of its two drinking water sources permanently damaged by MTBE. After it sued, Cambria was able to get Chevron to pay a $9 million settlement to help the town to build a desalinization plant; but under this bill, the taxpayers of Cambria, and of hundreds of towns, large and small, across this country would be forced to pay for the MTBE cleanup on their own. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) is right to raise this point of order. We should support the point of order and take this terrible provision out, which is going to force our constituents to shoulder the burden of cleanup on to the constituents.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule. I wanted to offer an amendment to remove the bill's special protection for MTBE manufacturers, but with this rule, the House is deprived of that vote. The Republican leadership knows it could well lose a vote on such amendment. MTBE is responsible, after all, for polluting groundwater in hundreds of communities. Cleanup costs are estimated in the billions. Currently, MTBE manufacturers are being held accountable in court, but this bill gives them safe harbor. Many of us have water districts or towns with lawsuits against MTBE manufacturers that will be voided under this bill. For example, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen); And from Connecticut, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons); And from my home State, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza), the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes), the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly), the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary Miller), the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox). Just examples, all with pending lawsuits from a few of the 29 States being polluted with this MTBE in the groundwater. The special protection in this bill for MTBE manufacturers is completely unwarranted. It will cost our constituents a fortune. This is an unfair rule, and we should vote it down.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Nussle budget. This budget cuts $20 billion from Medicaid. Our friends on the other side of the aisle claim that this is not a cut, just a reduction in growth. But it is a cut. When prices increase, and they surely have in health care, and spending does not match that increase, you are reducing the program's purchasing power. You are cutting the program. This budget is going to deny States, health care providers and low-income working families $20 billion for the health care services that they would have had. And there is no evidence that closing loopholes or fighting waste, fraud and abuse would save anywhere near this amount. Medicaid provides health care, irreplaceable health care, to 52 million of our poorest children, poor pregnant women, parents and the elderly. It is a critical source of acute and long-term care for 13 million elderly people and disabled people. These are real people who would be affected by cutting $20 billion out of Medicaid. Mr. Chairman, since the President took office, the number of uninsured has increased by 5.2 million. Without Medicaid, this number would surely have grown much higher. Medicaid enrollment grew by 6 million over the same period, covering many people who would otherwise have been uninsured. Even so, Medicaid costs have grown about half as fast as private health insurance premiums have grown. Between 2000 and 2003, Medicaid per capita spending went up 6.9 percent while private insurance premiums shot up over 12.5 percent. The growth we have seen is a result of the skyrocketing health costs that the President has allowed, not Medicaid itself. If these cuts in Medicaid are made, the ranks of the uninsured will surely increase, the economy will become weaker, and health care costs would skyrocket even more because fewer people would be unable to afford regular checkups and preventive measures but would be stuck by going to the emergency room as a last resort. That is why the National Governors' Association opposes these cuts. It is why faith-based organizations oppose these cuts. And it is certainly why organizations, which I have a list of here, like the March of Dimes, the National Association of Children's Hospitals, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the AARP, all of these groups and many more oppose the cuts that this budget puts into Medicaid. I urge my colleagues to vote against this budget and these draconian cuts in Medicaid.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak very briefly about an aspect of fiscal responsibility, the rule called pay-as-you-go, because there is a connection between our lack of fiscal responsibility and these draconian cuts we are seeing in vital services, like the $20 billion that people who are poor and dependent on Medicaid will be forced to endure. Our colleagues in the majority have consistently opposed Democratic efforts to reinstall pay-as-you-go rules for both entitlement spending and new tax cuts. In fact, they just denied the House the ability to vote on such a proposal offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) and the Blue Dogs. These PAYGO reforms were put in place in the 1990s and were essential to the successful effort achieved then to balance the budget. PAYGO reforms have been endorsed in their entirety by Alan Greenspan, but the Republicans do not want them applied to tax cuts. Why? Because doing so would require that they identify specific revenue measures, most likely spending cuts, which would provide the offsets, vital spend services being cut, such as Medicaid. So we should reinstate PAYGO. We should not support this budget, that destroys so much which is a part of our health care delivery, Medicaid.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House is continuing the funding mechanism for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Fund or LUST fund. Across this country there are hundreds of thousands of leaking underground storage tanks. Many, if not most, of these have MTBE in them and have been linked to the contamination of groundwater in thousands of communities. So it is important that we continue funding for the Trust Fund that helps communities get these messes cleaned up where responsible parties can't be found. But I agree with my colleagues who, noting the needs that are out there, have called for a longer extension of this funding mechanism. Clearly, we have to give states more support and the ability to know that the LUST fund will back up their efforts. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is also important to note how inadequate the efforts of this Administration have been in addressing the problem of leaking tanks. For example, the LUST fund could take in approximately $200 million in revenues this year alone. And yet the Administration proposes to spend only slightly more than a third of that to address the problems caused by these leaking tanks. This is a completely inadequate response to addressing the 136,000 spills across the country. We should be spending more to help these communities clean up. We should also be enacting common sense reforms like requiring secondary containment for underground storage tanks. We should be requiring more frequent inspections of all underground tanks. And we shouldn't be taking steps like those in the energy bill that would weaken ``polluter pay'' laws. The energy bill as currently drafted weakens EPA's ability to recover the money they spend to clean up sites. We have to continue holding polluters accountable for the damage they cause. So while I will support this bill, I believe we should be doing much more.